The American Sentinel, Vol. 4, No. 34. (9/18/1889)

The American Sentinel

Sep 18, 1889

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Sep 18, 1889

Our Position.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

It has been our duty in our work to criticise very severely at times the actions and sayings of certain men,—churchmen, ministers of the gospel and lay workers,—and also the action of certain religious organs, in connection with the movement to secure national enforcement of Sunday observance. It has not been a pleasant task to do this, and we have not done so because of any feeling of antagonism to the individuals so criticised; much less have we done so because of any antagonism whatever to religion; but there are some who do not distinguish carefully, and there are others, we are sorry to say, who willfully misrepresent our motives. Therefore we will make a few statements.

We do not oppose this Sunday movement because we have no respect for the convictions of those who observe Sunday. Not only do we reverence the Bible, but we have respect for every man’s belief concerning the Bible. We are perfectly willing to afford to every person the free privilege of believing as he chooses. Not only are we willing but we insist upon it for every person. We believe that the government must protect all. We believe that the government should protect the Sunday observer in his observance of Sunday, just the same as it protects one who observes another day of the week in his observance of that day.

It is only the unchristian methods of doing what professes to be Christian work, but which is in reality unchristian, that we oppose.

We oppose Sunday legislation not because we are not willing that people should observe Sunday if they wish to, and not because we are unwilling that the government should see that they are not interfered with in their observance of Sunday, but we oppose the Sunday movement because it is unchristian, and it is shown to be unchristian by the unchristian methods employed in its maintenance.

We have the kindest feelings for all religious people. We would grant them the same consideration in their belief and practice that we would ask them to show us. It is only when they claim as their right that which they are not willing to grant to those who differ with them that we oppose them. When they do that, they are doing just that which they would not have others do to them, and that very thing shows their movement to be unchristian, because it is contrary to the rule laid down by Christ.

Let this distinction be kept constantly in view. Anything that can be shown by argument to be right, the SENTINEL will not oppose. Nay, more; although we do not believe that Sunday has the slightest sacredness, or has any claim to respect, more than Monday or Tuesday, yet if they will confine their advocacy of it to legitimate lines,—namely, the pulpit, the press, the Sunday-school, the family,—the SENTINEL would never say a word against them. In fact if this were so, there would be no SENTINEL.

The advocates of Sunday have the most perfect right to go anywhere or everywhere that they can secure a hearing, and speak night and day, teaching people to observe Sunday as a day of rest, appealing to their conscience and bringing arguments to bear upon them. They have a right to publish papers and circulate them everywhere, wherever they can induce people to read them. Against such work the SENTINEL would never lift its voice. But when they advocate the use of force, when they advocate measures which they would by no means consent to have carried out toward themselves were the conditions reversed, then the SENTINEL will oppose them, and it will call upon every consistent Christian to unite with it in its opposition.

We want it distinctly understood that the SENTINEL is opposed to nothing that is Christian-like. It was not started with the idea of antagonizing Christianity or any Christian movement. With doctrinal matters it has nothing to do. Its sole work is the maintenance of religious liberty of thought and action, because under such circumstances alone can true Christianity flourish. It does not claim to be the arbiter of what Christianity is, it does not presume to say what men ought to believe, or what they are to teach, or what religious customs they are to practice;—it has only to do with efforts to propagate views by methods that tend only to oppression. Who is there that cannot stand upon the same platform?

E. J. W.

The State to Let Religion Alone.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

We recently had the pleasure of listening to one of a series of talks by Bishop Vincent, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the epistles of Paul to Timothy, and were much edified by some remarks that he made upon the first two verses of the second chapter of the first epistle, which read as follows:—

“I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”

Said he, “We should pray for kings and those in authority—for what purpose? That the church may have power in the government? No. That our ministers may have good appointments under the government? No. That the church may have the authority of the government to carry forward its work? No. But that they may so mind their business that we may have a quiet and tranquil life. The church makes a

great mistake when it seeks to secure worldly position, and to influence temporal power.”

He said that he always admired the answer that Diogenes made to Alexander, when the king visited the philosopher and asked him what he could do for him. The philosopher answered, “Stand out of the light.” “Such,” said he, “should be the position of the church. All that Christians should ask of the government is to let us alone, and to stand out of the way so that we may live quietly and peaceably, and carry on the work of the gospel by the power of the Spirit.”

The bishop said further, “The abomination of abominations is the aspiration on the part of the church for temporal power. What the church wants is spiritual power.” He then stated that the spiritual power of a church always declines in proportion as the church gains temporal power.

These are truths that have been time and again set forth in the AMERICAN SENTINEL, but we are glad to be able to present them anew from the mouth of so prominent and eminent a man as Bishop J. H. Vincent. It shows that the work of the AMERICAN SENTINEL in opposing the so-called National Reform movement, instead of being infidel or atheistic, is most truly Christian, and that the most active Christian workers,—those who have a right to that title,—promulgate the very same principles that the SENTINEL does.

While we in our work often have to make severe strictures on certain churchmen, we would not have anyone get the idea that it is because we are opposed to churches or Christianity. Our strictures upon those persons are not because we oppose whatever of true Christianity they may possess, but it is because they are doing not only unchristian but antichristian work. They are attempting to secure the very thing which Bishop Vincent says is the abomination of abominations in the church, and tends to dearth of spirituality. Therefore we may say without fear of successful contradiction that the AMERICAN SENTINEL is working for the conservation of true Christianity in this country.

E. J. W.

The True Doctrine of Christian Liberty

“THE true doctrine [of Christian liberty] is not merely our right to think for ourselves, but the right of the other man to think for himself.”

Religious Liberty Under Frederick

It was the will of Frederick the Great, that in his dominions everybody should be at liberty to “get saved after his own fashion.” If all governments had ever been so wise as that of Frederick, what horrors the world would have escaped.

The Arrogance of Sunday Legislation

WHEN the church leaders force upon men the observance of a day, as the Lord's day, while at the same time they themselves know and say that there is no authority from the Lord for its observance, what is that but the most arrogant assumption of power?

Government Support and Civic Duty

In this time where there is so much clamor for legislation pledging governmental help to certain classes it would be well for all to remember the words of President Cleveland: “It is not the duty of the government to support the people; but of the people to support the government.”

Civil Government and Christianity

THE realm of civil government is that of the natural, not the supernatural relations of mankind. The worship of God is a supernatural relation, with it government can never have anything to do. Christianity is a supernatural thing; it is a supernatural gift; and with it no civil government can ever of right have anything to do.

The Sabbath Genuine Religion Can Give

BISHOP HEARST of the M. E. Church says that “The Germans who land on our shores do not know what the Sabbath is—they never saw it. They want to be presented with such a Sabbath as national legislation can give.” But the Germans who land here, in a little while become important factors themselves in the matter of legislation, both State and national. Then will not the Sabbath that is given by legislation bear much of the blemish of those who it is confessed know not what it is? We would inquire of the Bishop and his Sunday-law co-workers, whether it would not be a good plan for the churches of this country to present to the Germans and all others such a Sabbath as the genuine religion of Christ can give? This would be an ambition worthy of their sincerest endeavors.

The Explanation Does Not Explain.

By A. T. J.

Since our publication of Cardinal Gibbons’ letter to Mr. Lindsay of Baltimore, stating that in indorsing the Sunday movement last winter, he spoke only for himself and that he had neither the authority nor the intention of binding the archbishops, bishops, or the Catholic laymen of the United States, Mr. Crafts finds himself in hot water, about everywhere he goes. In the Chicago News of May 21, Mr. Edward Cadman published a communication upon which Mr. Crafts replied in the News of July 13, in which he flounders considerably. He says:—

“The American Sabbath Union, not the ‘American Sunday Union,’ when Cardinal Gibbons’ letter was first presented at the National Sabbath Convention, distinctly said through my lips, as the letter was directed to me, that the letter (which was read in full, that each hearer might judge for himself what is meant) was not equivalent to the signature of the whole Catholic Church, although it was hoped it would be equivalent to a negative indorsement by that church in that the approval of the Cardinal, it was thought, would prevent opposition to the Sunday-rest petition by any loyal Catholic.”

Yes, Mr. Crafts, on that point, said:—

“The letter is not equal in value to the individual signatures of the millions he represents, but no Catholic priest or paper or person will oppose what has thus been indorsed.”

But in that very statement he speaks of the millions whom the Cardinal represents when the Cardinal distinctly asserts that his action in that thing was not representative. More than this; Mr. Crafts makes the Cardinal’s action a test of loyalty to every Catholic priest, paper, and person, when the Cardinal distinctly affirms that he had not the authority to make his action in that a test of the loyalty of Catholics, and that “as he had not the authority, so he had not the intention” of doing it. And still, Mr. Crafts insists that it is a test of Catholic loyalty. The fact is, his explanation is more wicked and far less excusable than his original statement.

Nor is this all. When Mrs. Bateham stood on the platform of the Foundry Methodist Church of Washington City, on the night of December 11, 1888, and spoke of the petitions with which that church was festooned, and told who were in favor of it, she distinctly said:—

“Cardinal Gibbons has indorsed for all his people.”

I myself was there, within thirty feet of her, and was paying the strictest attention when she made the statement, and I wrote down the words as they fell from her lips. Mr. Crafts speaks of the explanation (which doesn’t explain), which was given through his lips, but these are the words which came through her lips.

Yet more than this. In document No. 1, of the American Sabbath Union, issued December, 1888, after the convention was over, there is this sentence:—

“Cardinal Gibbons also sent him (Dr. Crafts) an official letter indorsing the petition on behalf of the plenary council of the Roman Catholic Church.”

And also this one, which editors are asked to publish:—

“The Catholic Church has indorsed the petition through a letter of its Cardinal.”

This shows that the American Sabbath Union did intentionally, and without authority, count all the Roman Catholics of the country in Cardinal Gibbons’ name. It shows also that they intentionally made the Cardinal’s indorsement binding even to the test of loyalty upon all the Catholics of the country, thus transcending both the authority and the intention of the Cardinal himself.

These are facts which the American Sabbath Union and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union cannot escape. Nor can they escape the just condemnation which goes with the facts. No explanation that has been, or that can be presented, will clear them. Every effort to defend their action, and every effort by explanation to shield themselves from just condemnation, only makes the matter worse. There is only one way out, and that is by open confession. Let them confess that they committed a fraud. Or, if they think that that would be too much for them, we are inclined to be charitable, let them confess that in the matter of the Roman Catholic petitions they have wholly misrepresented; then let them stop circulating the documents which contain the misrepresentation. This will clear them from any further guilt in the matter, then we will count all that in the past, and hold them no longer responsible for it, and will say no more about it. But so long as they defend their action in this matter, just so long will we see to it that the facts shall be set before the people and that the authors of the wickedness are held up to the just condemnation that belongs with the facts.

In the above extract Mr. Crafts says that at the National Sabbath Convention at Washington, the Cardinal’s letter was read in full that each hearer might judge for himself what it meant. Upon this, it must be said, to put it in the mildest possible way, that Mr. Crafts has forgotten the facts. I say again, that I was there, and was within thirty feet of Mr. Crafts when he referred to the letter; and listened carefully, hoping that the whole of the letter might be read, and was disappointed that the whole of it was not read. We therefore say upon the evidence of distinct remembrance that the letter was not read in full, because Mr. Crafts stated that it was “for the Senate Committee.”

Mr. Crafts further says:—

“Another misrepresentation in the letter of Mr. Cadman is the statement that ‘the admission of a single Catholic to the Union was strenuously opposed.’ The fact is dishonestly withheld that it was more strenuously favored, and that a Catholic was elected as a member of the Executive Committee.”

It is not in any sense a misrepresentation to say that the admission of a single Catholic to the Union was strenuously opposed. That is a positive fact. It was opposed, and that by Mr. Crafts himself. Even to the extent of trying repeatedly to adjourn the meeting, and it was only owing to the fact that it was more strenuously favored that even one Catholic was elected as a member of the Executive Committee. Although there isn’t a great deal of credit attaching to the Union on that account, because the Catholics, according to the count, were the majority of all—7,200,000 to 5,977,693—and yet they were allowed only one member upon an Executive Committee of more than a dozen.

The American Sabbath Union had better start new, and do its work fairly. A. T. J.

“Does it Pay.”

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Not long since, we listened to a lecture by Col. Elliott F. Shepard, president of the American Sabbath Union, on the question, “Does the Sabbath pay?” The lecture was notable chiefly for what the lecturer did not say, but there were one or two points which are worthy of careful attention, inasmuch as they show the principle, or rather the lack of Christian principle in this movement for the legal observance of Sunday. The whole thing is contained in the subject of the lecture, viz., “Does it pay?” We will note a few statements. Said Mr. Shepard:—

“Divine finance; what is it? The Old and the New Testament agree in contradicting Wall Street, and show that prosperity is to be found in obedience to God’s commandments?”

This was the main feature of the lecture, namely the proof that more money could be made by resting on Sunday than by working upon it; and nothing but a mercenary motive was placed before the people. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Shepard said to the chairman of the meeting, “I would make some converts here to-night;” and then he proceeded to state that the railroads of the United States have suffered pecuniary loss because of their Sunday work. To emphasize this he made a little mathematical calculation to demonstrate, which we shall not try to follow; but the conclusion of which was that a manufacturer would make thirty-six per cent. more on his investment by resting on Sunday than by working on that day. Thus, while a man by working on Sunday might make fourteen per cent. on his investment, by a strict observance of the day he would make fifty per cent.

This shows a gain of thirty-six per cent. for Sunday observance. And then the question was asked, “Which is better, for a man to work on Sunday and make fourteen per cent. or to rest on Sunday and make fifty per cent. Anyone will say the latter is better.”

We are not at all convinced that Mr. Shepard’s mathematical calculations are correct, but let that pass. The question that at once arose in our mind was this: If Sunday-keeping pays pecuniarily, and if it can be demonstrated that a merchant or a manufacturer can make thirty-six per cent. more by resting on Sunday than by working, what need is there to ask the government to pass laws making it a crime for working on Sunday? Are the merchants and manufacturers in the United States so blind to their own business interests, so obtuse, so dull where dollars and cents are concerned, that they cannot be made to see the gain there is in Sunday observance? and, seeing it, would they deliberately choose a small per cent. in preference to a very large per cent.? We are forced to conclude that there is either something wrong with Mr. Shepard’s mathematics or with his position as president of the American Sabbath Union. But this is not the worst feature of the case.

The pernicious effect of such teaching as that of Mr. Shepard cannot be seen now, but it will be demonstrated in time. The only argument he presented in the course of the whole evening (and his discourse was on Sunday evening too) was that there would be pecuniary profit in resting on Sunday,—that Sunday-keeping would invariably bring prosperity, and that Sunday-breaking would as invariably result in financial ruin. Now any person of common sense knows that this is not so; but that is not the point. People do not always use their common sense, and that idea of Mr. Shepard’s is getting to be quite common. Now couple this with another statement that he made in the same discourse. Said he, “It is useless for any one to claim that the Sabbath [by which he meant Sunday, of course] has any rights, except as they plant themselves on the divine commandment.” He had already stated that the fourth commandment was the first commandment with blessing, and the only blessing that he made reference to was financial prosperity. Therefore the natural conclusion from his talk would be that the only blessing that is connected with the fourth commandment is temporal.

Still further: It is not a fact that obedience to the commandments of God will invariably bring temporal prosperity. In fact, it is most often the opposite, and has been so from time immemorial. The Psalmist recorded his feeling when he saw the prosperity of the wicked, seeing they were not in trouble as other men were, while the righteous were cast down. Everybody knows that some of the richest men in the world have been profligate, often base, grinding the poor, and have obtained their wealth by the most dishonorable methods, and have trampled upon every principle of right and justice. But let such teaching as that of Colonel Shepard become generally accepted, and what will be the result? Simply that the possession of great wealth will be taken as an expression of divine favor. The man who is enormously wealthy will be taken as a special favorite of Heaven. Let it be accepted that keeping the commandments necessarily results in worldly prosperity, while a violation of them results in embarrassment and ruin, and there can be no other conclusion but that the man who is rich is the one who is doing right; and so people in estimating his character will not compare his life with the commandments to see if he is obeying them, but will simply measure his bank account; and no matter how vile he has been, or by what unjust methods he may have obtained his wealth, he will be considered righteous. And so we have another indisputable proof that this Sunday movement is unchristian, and tends only to immorality.

We know that in ancient times the idea prevailed that the possession of wealth was a sign of the divine blessing. This idea was firmly fixed in the minds of the ancient Pharisees. So firmly did they believe it that many of them made it the great point in their lives to get wealth, regardless of the means by which it was acquired. And while continually transgressing the divine commandment in acquiring their wealth, they would point to the possession of that wealth as the evidence that they were righteous, and that God loved them. There are Pharisees enough in the world now, but Col. Shepard and the Association to which he belongs are doing their best to make more.

E. J. W.

Religion and the Public Schools.

By Alonzo T. Jones

February 15, 1889, there was held a hearing before the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor upon the Blair resolution, to teach the principles of the Christian religion in all the public schools of the Nation. At that time there appeared before the committee, Rev. T. P. Stevenson, of Philadelphia, corresponding secretary of the National Reform Association; Rev. James M. King, D. D., of New York, representing the American branch of the Evangelical Alliance; Rev. George K. Morris, D. D., of Philadelphia; Rev. W. M. Glasgow, of Baltimore; Rev. J. M. McCurdy, of Philadelphia; C. R. Blackall; and W. M. Morris, M. D., of Philadelphia—all these in favor of the resolution. Again, on February 22, there was a hearing before the committee on the same resolution. At that time there appeared Rev. Dr. Philip Moxom, Rev. Dr. James B. Dunn, Rev. Dr. James M. Gray—these three being a sub-committee from the Boston Committee of one hundred; Rev. Dr. J. H. Beard, Rev. T. P. Stevenson, and others, all in favor of the resolution. Against it there were Rev. J. O. Corliss and Alonzo T. Jones, editor of the American Sentinel. The following is Mr. Jones' argument:—

Mr. Chairman, there is a point or two not yet touched upon which I wish to notice in the little time that I shall have. I gather from the letter from the author of this resolution to the secretary of the National Reform Association that the intention of this proposed amendment is primarily for the benefit of the State; that the object of the teaching of religion in the public schools is not to be given with the view of fitting the children for heaven, nor of making them Christians; but that it is rather and more particularly to fit them for this world and to make them good citizens; that it is not religion which needs the support of the State so much as it is the State which needs the support of religion. This is the view held, I know, by some of the principal members of the National Reform Association, as, for instance, President Julius H. Seelye and Judge M. B. Hagan. These have expressed it that it is only as a political factor, and its worth only according to its “political value,” that the State proposes to secure and enforce the teaching of religion in the public schools; that the object of the instruction is not “the spiritual welfare of the children,” but “for the benefit of the State.” This argument appears very plausible, but it is utterly fallacious. The supreme difficulty with such a view is that it wholly robs religion of its divine sanctions and replaces them only with civil sanctions. It robs religion of its eternal purposes and makes it only a temporal expedient. From being a plan devised by divine wisdom to secure the eternal salvation of the soul, Christianity is, by this scheme, made a mere human device to effect a political purpose. And for the State to give legal and enforced sanction to the idea that the Christian religion and the belief and practice of its principles are only for temporal advantage, is for the State to put an immense premium upon hypocrisy. But there is entirely too much of this already. There is already enough of this in the world. The State can never secure it. This at once carries us into the realm of conscience, upon the plane of the spiritual, and it can be secured only by spiritual forces, none of which have ever been committed to the State, but to the church only.

But right here there comes in an argument presented to me by a United States Senator in this Capitol, one who is in favor of this proposed amendment, too. He was speaking in favor of the amendment. I had said that religious instruction belongs wholly to the parents and to the church—that the State cannot give it because it has not the credentials for it. He replied in these words:—

“But when the family fails and the church fails, the State has to do something.”

“The answer to this is easy:—

(1) To the family and to the church and to these alone the Author of the Christian religion has committed the work of teaching that religion, and if these fail, the failure is complete.

(2) The statement of the Senator implies that the State is some sort of an entity so entirely distinct from the people who compose it that the State can do for the people what they cannot do for themselves. But the State is made up only of the people who compose the State. The church likewise is made up of such of these as voluntarily choose to enter her fold. To the church is committed the Spirit of God and the ministrations of the word of God, by which only the inculcation of the Christian religion can be secured. Then, the people composing the State, and the families composing the people, and the propagation of religion and the credentials for it being committed only to the family and the church, by this it is again demonstrated that when the family and the church fail to teach the Christian religion the failure is complete.

The only thing that the State can do under such circumstances is by an exertion of power, the only means at its command, to check the tide of evil for a time, but it is only checked. It is like trying to dam up any other torrent—it may be checked for a moment, only to break its bounds and become more destructive than before. The only real remedy is to begin at the fountain and purify the heart, which can be done only by the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ; for it is only faith in him that can purify the heart and cause the fountain to send forth the sweet waters of everlasting righteousness instead of the bitter stream of evil. This work, however, is committed to the church and not to the State; to the church is given the credentials and the power for its accomplishment.

She has proved unfaithful to her trust, and that now she wants to ease herself of the responsibility and pass it over to the State. But when they shall have gotten the State to take upon itself the work of the church, what then do they intend that the church shall do? That is the next question that arises; it is an important one, too, for the State to consider, but it is easily answered.

When they once get the State to carry on and support the work of the church, the next step will be to get the State to support the church, and that in idleness, as every State has ever had to do, and will ever have to do, which takes upon itself the task of teaching religion. And this is precisely the thing that the National Reform Association, whose chief secretary stands the second time to-day in this room to plead for the adoption of this resolution, proposes that the State shall do. Rev. J. M. Foster, who has been for years a “district secretary” in active service in the work of that association, declares that among the duties which the reigning Mediator requires of nations, there is this:—

“An acknowledgment and performance of the Nation's duty to guard and protect the church—by suppressing all public violations of the moral law; by maintaining a system of public schools, indoctrinating their youth in morality and virtue; by exempting church property from taxation;” and “by providing her funds out of the public treasury for carrying on her aggressive work at home, and in the foreign field.”—Christian Statesman, February 21, 1884.

That is the very point to which the State will be brought as surely as it ever takes it upon itself to teach religion. Therefore, if the government of the United States wants to keep forever clear of the galling burden of a lazy, good-for-nothing church, let it keep forever clear of any attempt to teach religion.

But the statement upon which I am arguing was to the effect that if the church fails and the family fails, something must be done. Yes, it is true, something must be done; but it must be done by the church and not by the State. The church must return to her Lord. She must be endowed afresh with power from on high. Then she can take up with vigor and with prospect of assured success her long-neglected work. Let the preachers come down from their ten-thousand-dollar pulpits, lay aside their gold rings, and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit of love of the Divine Master. Let them go to the common people, to the poor, to the outcast, the neglected, and the forsaken. If to these they go in the spirit and with the mission of the Saviour, they will be heard gladly, as was he. There is no need to complain of the wickedness of the people. This Nation is not as wicked yet as was the Roman world in the day when Christ sent forth his little band of disciples. Yet as wicked as the world then was, these few men went forth armed only with the word of God and the power of his Holy Spirit, to contend against all the wickedness of the wide world; and by their abiding faith, their unabating earnestness, and their deathless zeal, they spread abroad the honors of that name to the remotest bounds of the then known world, and brought to the knowledge of the salvation of Christ multitudes of perishing men. If that little company then could do so much and so well for the then known world, what could not this great host now do for the United States, if they would but work in the same way and by the same means. Yes, gentlemen, something must be done; but it must be done by the church; for it never can be done by the State.

Gentlemen, it is perfectly safe to say that no more important question has ever come before your committee than is this one which is before you to-day. It is a question that is approaching a crisis in more than one of the States; and it is exceedingly important that the National Constitution and laws and government be kept on the side of right, and the constitutions, laws, and governments of the States shall be lifted to the level of the Nation. A. T. J.

[To be Continued]

Sabbath And Sunday.

The “American Sabbath Union” wants a law enacted to enforce abstention from labor on Sunday. Though the Union itself professes to observe the day as a religious duty, in compliance with the command of the Almighty, as given through Moses, it wishes the State to command its observance as “a rest day” solely as a measure of secular policy, for the physical and moral well-being of the body of the people. Observed in this way, however, Sunday will not be a sacred day. It will merely be a holiday, and this, in fact, with very great numbers, is its significance now.

Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, in his sermons on the subject, says: “The right arm of the Union’s work is to promote the religious Sabbath, the left arm is to preserve the civil Sabbath. The religious Sabbath treats Sunday work and dissipation as sins against God; the civil Sabbath considers them only as crimes against man.” This is not an ingenuous way of putting the statement. It is found impossible to enforce the doctrine that non-observance of Sunday is a sin against God, and now there is an effort to gain the point through indirection, by making failure to keep Sunday as a day of rest a crime against man.

But if the State is not to enforce observance of Sunday as a sacred day, it cannot possibly make non-observance of Sunday a crime. It can appoint Sunday as a day of weekly rest, a holiday after the manner of other holidays; but if the day of weekly rest stands on this ground it may be observed or not, as persons may or may not wish to observe it. We have now many holidays, but their observance is merely voluntary. The State, unless it forms an alliance with the church to declare non-observance of Sunday a sin against God, has no more ground for its command to men to rest on the Sunday holiday than on the Christmas holiday; and, in fact, since the requirements of modern life make it desirable, and even necessary, that many activities shall continue without interruption of holidays or rest days, the people, or a majority of them, would not want the proposed Sunday law enforced, and hence it would not be enforced. A great many persons now rest on Sundays; some rest on other days of the week, as convenience or opportunity allows; and a great many of us would rest not only one day in the week, but seven days in the week, if we could. Necessity, in one form or another, drives most of us to work and keeps us at it. From this necessity the State never can relieve us. We rest when we can, and work because we can’t help it.

The Christian world has changed the sacred day, the day of rest, from Saturday to Sunday. For this change there is not even the semblance of divine authority that appears in the sanction of the Jewish Sabbath. Nowhere in the New Testament is the substitution of Sunday for Saturday as “the Sabbath” authorized or enjoined. The first day of the week, or Sunday, is mentioned only eight times in the New Testament, and in none of the texts is there the least hint that the day was sacred, or was thereafter to be so considered. In one place in the New Testament mention is made of a religious meeting held on the first day of the week. But throughout the New Testament the seventh day of the week is uniformly called the Sabbath, and there is no command for the observance of the first day of the week as a holy or sacred day. The authority for such observance rests partly on a usage of the early church, but chiefly on a decree of the Emperor Constantine who, in the year 321, when that union was made between Church and State which the world has ever since been trying to sever, ordained the union of the worship of Christ with the worship of Apollo, and commanded “rest on the venerable day of the sun.”

Sun worship, symbolized by the worship of Apollo as the god of the sun, was common throughout the Roman empire. The first day of the week, or Sunday, was the day devoted to this heathen worship. This form of idolatry was almost universal throughout the ancient world. In Gibbon’s History, chapter 20, we read: “The devotion of Constantine was peculiarly directed to the genius of the sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology; and he was pleased to be represented by the symbols of the god of light and poetry. The unerring shafts of that deity, the brightness of his eyes, his laurel wreath, immortal beauty and elegant accomplishments, seemed to point him out as the patron of a young hero. The altars of Apollo were covered with the votive offerings of Constantine; and the credulous multitude were taught to believe that the emperor was permitted to behold with mortal eyes the visible majesty of their tutelar deity; and that, either waking or in a vision, he was blessed with the auspicious omens of a long and virtuous reign. The sun was universally accepted as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine.”

The emperor, therefore, commanded the observance of the day devoted to the worship of the sun, not as the Sabbath, which it was not, but under its old astronomical and heathen title, Dies Solis, or the day of the sun, which it was. It was a

piece of statecraft, designed as a means of uniting the worship of Christ with the worship of Apollo, and Constantine stamped on his coins the name of one and the image of the other. The idea was to create harmony in the empire by making it appear that the religions differed little from each other, and were in fact essentially the same.

Historically, therefore, the observance of Sunday is an outgrowth of sun worship. Having seen the origin of the observance of the seventh day of the week as a holy day, the manner of the change from the seventh day to the first day and the reasons therefor, we may be able to get a juster estimate of the assertion that it is a sin against God to do anything on Sundays for which our ecclesiastical teachers have not granted us a dispensation. The other part of the argument, that men work too assiduously and therefore that a weekly rest day should be ordained by law, may seem to superficial observation quite another thing; but in fact it has its origin in a desire to cause the State to support the church in the claim that non-observance of Sunday is a sin against God. But for this and for their desire to have the day all their own, the ministers of our “Sabbath Union” would care little whether working people had one day’s rest in the week, or not. Very probably they would even exhort us against the sin of idleness, should we propose a rest-day for ourselves.—Portland Daily Oregonian, August 2, 1889.

Continue reading: Should Civil Laws Forbid Blasphemy?