The American Sentinel 10
August 22, 1895
“Sunday Enforcement in New York” American Sentinel 10, 33, pp. 257, 258.
IF anything had been lacking to illustrate fully the absurdity of Sunday legislation, it would be supplied by current events in this city. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.1
New York has a very voluminous Sunday law, comprising, all told, about 2,200 words, and the possibilities bound up in it are immense. The most recent addition to the Sunday Code of the State, is a section prohibiting barbering on Sunday, except in New York and Saratoga, and also in these cities after one o’clock, P.M., on that day. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.2
Some of the decisions under the Sunday statute of the State are specially worthy of note in this connection. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.3
In 1811, Judge Kent said that “the statute has, for over a century, recognized the sanctity and the obligation [of Sunday], and punished its violators.” While in the case of Campbell vs. International Society (4 Box., New York, 298), we are told that the statute “explicitly recognizes the first day of the week as holy time, and thus it has brought us back to the full and large and absolute rule of interdiction which we find provided in the earliest laws of Christian States, and which the construction of the statute of Charles II. has tended somewhat to narrow and impair.” Again, in 12, New York, 455, the question is asked, “Is it not obvious that by reason of keeping a store open for business, a temptation is presented to those who have no regard for Sunday as holy time to violate the law?” Again, Judge Allen, of New York, held in 1861 that “the law of the State conforms to the law of God as that law is recognized by a great majority of the people.” AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.4
These authorities might be multiplied, but they are sufficient to show the purpose and intent of the Sunday statutes of New York. That they rest upon a distinctively religious basis, is beyond question; but that they utterly fail in this purpose is plainly shown by the manner of their application, as well as by the statutes themselves. The sale of intoxicating liquors is prohibited in general, but is none the less carried on extensively by clubs for the use of members. Thus the law in effect permits the rich man to do on Sunday what it prohibits to the poor man. That this is any great deprivation to the poor man we do not believe, because we think that all are better off without intoxicating drinks; but we very much doubt the wisdom of giving free rein to the liquor traffic six days in the week and of limiting it to wealthy clubs upon Sunday. The only reasons for prohibition that the State ought to consider apply equally to every day; and that they are given weight only in behalf of one day, shows that the restriction is for the purpose of honoring Sunday rather than restricting the liquor traffic. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.5
Shooting, hunting, trapping, and fishing, are prohibited on Sunday, and this section has been so rigidly construed as to extend even to the taking of fish in private ponds. Such a regulation can have only one object, namely the exaltation of the day because of its religious character. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.6
Another section prohibits all labor on Sunday “except works of necessity or charity;” and “works of necessity and charity” are defined as including “whatever is needful during the day for the good order, health, or comfort of the community.” It is also provided that “it shall be a sufficient defense to a prosecution for servile labor upon the first day of the week, that the defendant uniformally keeps another day of the week as holy time.” This latter exemption serves to emphasize the religious character of the statute. All “public sports, exercises, pastimes or shows upon the first day of the week,” are prohibited, but it has been held that “three men playing ball upon Sunday on private grounds” does not constitute a breach of the peace; and only a few months since Judge Gaynor, of Brooklyn, discharged a number of young men, arrested for playing ball on Sunday on a common in the city of Brooklyn, saying that it was no violation of the law. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.7
Section 266 reads:— AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.8
All trades, manufacturers, agricultural or mechanical employments upon the first day of the week are prohibited, except when the same are works of necessity they may be performed on that day in their usual and orderly manner, so as not to interfere with the repose and religious liberty of the community. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.9
But the next section provides for the sale of articles of food at any time before 10 o’clock in the morning, and prepared tobacco, fruit, confectionery, newspapers, drugs, medicines, and surgical appliances at any other time of the day. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.10
We have no fault to find with the sale of tobacco, fruit, and confectionery, newspapers, etc., on Sunday more than on other days; but viewed from the standpoint of various decisions that the purpose of the statute is to preserve the sanctity of the day, we can but wonder what kind of sanctity it is that can be preserved by a statute which prohibits all agricultural and mechanical employments, and at the same time permits the sale of tobacco, confectionery, etc. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.11
Another feature which emphasizes the religious character of the Sunday statute of New York, is the prohibition of all parades and processions on Sunday, except funeral processions for the actual burial of the dead, and “processions to and from a place of worship in connection with a religious service there celebrated.” AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.12
Another section prohibits theatricals, operas, etc. Doubtless it is this provision which has given rise to the so-called “sacred” concerts, wherein the livery of heaven is made to do service for the devil. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.13
Some of the decisions under the New York Sunday statute are peculiar; for instance, “a contract for the hire of a horse to be used on Sunday for pleasure cannot be enforced;” but “an agreement to make an ascension in a balloon on Sunday from a public garden, is within the statute.” Tobacco, fruit, etc., may be freely sold at any hour of the day, but it is a crime to sell a glass of soda-water, or a paper of pins. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.14
According to this statute, which it has been judicially declared, “is in harmony with the religions of the country and the religious sentiment of the public,” it is wrong to do barbering on Sunday in any place within the limits of New York State, except in the cities of New York and Saratoga, and even here it is right only until one o’clock in the afternoon. According to this “law” it is wrong for an expressman or drayman to receive or convey or deliver goods on Sunday, but quite right for the railroad companies or steamboats to do the same thing. It is quite right for a man to stand upon the street selling cigars, but wrong for another man, or for anybody else, to sell a pair of shoe-strings either on the street or in a store. AMS August 22, 1895, page 257.15
But enough has been given to illustrate not only the absurdity but the immorality of the so-called Sunday laws. Their purpose is declared to be to “protect the sanctity of the sabbath;” but their effect is the very opposite or would be were there any sanctity attached to the day which they are intended to safeguard. Their effect is to turn away the minds of the people from the law of God and center it upon the “law” of the State. They in effect say that the law of God is defective: that its prohibitions are too broad and sweeping, and that it must be changed in order to meet the conditions of modern society. And instead of leaving it to the individual conscience, a thousand absurd and inconsistent prohibitions are adopted, arbitrarily prohibiting one thing and permitting something else, which is neither more necessary nor more moral; hence the conscience is seared as with a hot iron. The individual, instead of asking, “What does the law of God say?” inquires only, What does the law of the State say? and the conscience is eased in committing sin if the act done is within the statute. Thus men are taught to look not to the law of God as a moral standard, but to the “law” of the State; the result is that their morals are no more perfect than is the “law” by which they are regulated. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.1
There has recently been an effort made in this city to enforce the Sunday statutes. This has been carried so far that some dealers have even been afraid to sell soda-water. Only a few weeks ago general notice was served throughout the city that all business must close. The manager of this office was notified to close up, which, however, he refused to do, and has not as yet been molested; but the end is not yet. Bigotry and fanaticism have not yet exhausted themselves, and the Sunday-law crusade has not run its course. Mayor Strong spent a recent Sunday at Asbury Park, N.J., and while there expressed his determination to enforce the “law,” and made special mention of the Sunday statute, which he said would be rigidly enforced; hence interesting developments may be expected in New York City erelong. However, these things only serve to illustrate the absurdity and immorality of Sunday legislation. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.2
“Without Excuse” American Sentinel 10, 33, p. 258.
THE Tribune, of Knoxville, Tenn., is published daily, including Sunday; yet, in its issue of August 7, it says:— AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.1
These thirty thousand Adventists want the statutory laws which meet the approval of some twenty millions of Christians in this country changed to suit their views, or amended as to give them the privilege of disregarding Sunday while denying the privilege to all who do not believe as they do. The law compels nobody to observe Sunday religiously. It makes it a legal day of rest, and enables the moral and religious element to devote the day to worship or religious observance undisturbed. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.2
We suppose that even the Tribune cannot be held responsible for what it does not know, as it would be unfair to so hopelessly load down even a newspaper; but there is no reason why it should not have known that Adventists do not ask “the privilege of disregarding Sunday while denying the privilege to all who no [sic.] not believe as they do.” AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.3
In a memorial presented to the legislature of Tennessee last April, the Adventists plainly said: “We do not ask simply for a clause exempting us from the penalties of the law, but for the repeal of the law; because to ask simply an exemption would be to admit the right of the State to legislate upon such questions, and consent that the legislature might properly require of others that which we are not willing it should exact from us.” AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.4
This thing was not done in a corner, and the Tribune ought to have known the facts before trying to state them. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.5
The Tribune continues:— AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.6
The law provides the largest religious freedom consistent with common sense and good government; it cannot undertake to adjust itself to exactly suit the views of the Adventists whose peculiar ideas lead them into deliberate violation of the law. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.7
Then why does not the Tribune obey the “law”? If the “law” is so good and so just, what possible excuse can the publishers of a newspaper have for violating it, as is done in the Tribune office fifty-two weeks every year? Or are we to understand that it is all right to violate the Sunday “law” for gain, but wrong to violate it for conscience’ sake? AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.8
But the Tribune says that “the Adventist is not compelled to labor on Sunday; he is not compelled to observe it in a religious manner; it does not force him to observe Saturday as a religious day; he can devote any day in the week he chooses to religious observance or worship, and so can anybody else. Sunday is the accepted sabbath of this country, and the law protects it as a day of rest.” AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.9
Again, the Tribune is discussing questions about which it knows nothing. The Adventist is compelled by the law of the Sabbath to labor on Sunday, for only by habitually treating it as a common day can he obey the fourth commandment. But in view of the utterances quoted, what possible excuse can the Tribune have for violating the Sunday statute of the State of Tennessee? AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.10
“The Man-made Sabbath” American Sentinel 10, 33, pp. 258, 259.
THE weakness and imperfection of human handiwork are often apparent enough in mundane things, but in the man-made sabbath they attain to such surpassing proportions as to eclipse all else. How, indeed, could it be otherwise, the Sabbath being a thing that is divine? AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.1
The man-made sabbath is the Sunday. This institution must be upheld by force, or it will fall to the ground. But force does not commend itself in such a thing to the upright person. Force is for the wicked, not for the good. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.2
It cannot be upheld without force, and it cannot be enforced without working hardship to innocent people. But a sabbath that works hardship upon people, works exactly contrary to the divine purpose of the Sabbath, which is to do people good and not to injure them. Human wisdom and discretion must direct the enforcement of the human sabbath, and these qualities, finite in themselves and often coupled with and controlled by a blind zeal, make it inevitable that the enforcement of the man-made sabbath should often be attended by injustice. Along with the poisonous liquor which should not be drunk on any day, the Sunday law is quite liable in many instances to shut away from poor people some of the necessaries of life. Cases illustrating this have been evolved from the effort now in progress to enforce the Sunday law in this city. And still greater is the hardship which it brings upon those who, in obedience to God’s command, observe the seventh day,—subjecting them to persecution and imprisonment, to say nothing of the financial loss which would result to them from Sunday idleness. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.3
Contrast with this man-made sabbath, the divine institution, “the Sabbath of the Lord,” that was made by Him who is infinite, who created man and sustains and ministers to him in all the needs of his human nature, even numbering the hairs of his head. At the close of creation, God rested on the seventh day and blessed that day, that it might be a blessing to mankind. He made it a day of delight to all who observe it, without a single exception. Upon this point he says, “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words, then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Isaiah 58:13, 14. Here is delight in its highest and most elevating form, and this delight God pledges to every observer of his holy day. There is no hardship in the Sabbath of the Lord, but only blessing; for it brings each individual into communion with Him who is infinite in goodness, in wisdom and in power. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.4
God’s Sabbath was made for man. Mark 2:27. This the Saviour said when he rebuked the Pharisees who found fault with his disciples because they plucked and ate the grain as they were passing through the fields on the Sabbath day. The Pharisees had made a sabbath which was against man, by perverting the divine institution to an agreement with their own human ideas, and loading it with man-made restrictions, by which a person would be compelled to go hungry on the Sabbath if the least work, such, for example, as that done by the disciples, were involved in the preparation of his food. To keep the Sabbath as they had made it by their traditions, was an intolerable burden, a mere exhibition of a person’s powers of endurance. Parallel with this “Jewish Sabbath,” and partaking of the same nature, was the Puritan Sunday, with its austere regulations for the deportment of old and young. This was against men, both in the day which it required to be observed, and in the manner of its observance. God has blessed only the seventh day, and only that day can bring the Sabbath blessing to mankind. Man cannot bless a day or make it holy or cause it to be a blessing and a delight to those who observe it. This can be done only by the power of God. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.5
But while the seventh day has been made a day of special blessing and delight by the act of God, and while he has both the power and the wisdom that enable him to deal impartially with every person, he does not force men and invites them to receive it as a blessing from him, but leaves all free to choose whether they will do so or not. It is left for the man-made sabbath to be thrust upon people by force. Having neither the power nor the wisdom nor the Word of God to give it force, its dependence is only human precepts, human example and enactments. And as human precept and example are found insufficient to give it respect and stability among men, the highest power of man is invoked in its support, which is the power of law. But human law cannot change the heart, or touch the hidden springs of love and free will which must be called into action in true Sabbath keeping, as set forth in the Word of God. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.6
This completes the picture of human folly which is being exhibited before the world by the misguided people who are working to force Sunday keeping upon their fellowmen by law. Sabbath making and Sabbath enforcing are things altogether beyond the finite wisdom and power of man. Meanwhile the Sabbath of the Lord—the seventh day, blessed and sanctified by Him and perfectly adapted to our human needs,—remains for all mankind, a a [sic.] day of blessing and delight to all who choose its observance, and a sign of their vital connection with the one true God, the Creator of heaven and earth. AMS August 22, 1895, page 258.7
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 33, p. 264.
FURTHER particulars concerning the prosecutions in London, Eng., for Sunday labor, inform us that the Adventist publishing house on Holloway Road has been fined about $100 (including costs) for successive violations of the Sunday (factory) law, and the defendants were informed that in case the fines are not satisfied there will be an imprisonment of fourteen days for each offense. AMS August 22, 1895, page 264.1
The ostensible aim of this factory law is to protect woman and minors from being overworked; but in this prosecution there is no charge of overwork or of hardship to the employés, all of whom rest on the seventh day of the week. The prosecution rests solely on the fact that work was done on the first day of the week. Instead of being a protection to these employés, the law, as it is applied, actually works hardship to them, since it would deprive them of one-sixth of their wages. The manager of the office is prosecuted under a law designed to protect employés, because the law is not allowed to work exactly contrary to its purpose! Was ever a law made to exhibit such absurdity of injustice? AMS August 22, 1895, page 264.2
The trouble is, it is a Sunday law. Doubtless its originators thought it a very benign and useful piece of legislation, as indeed it seems upon its face. But there was a dead fly in the ointment, and now it comes to light. And that is true of every legal measure which has within it the Sunday institution. Sunday laws will never operate as they are intended; for they are contrary to the eternal law of right. AMS August 22, 1895, page 264.3
THE Christian Statesman complains that the nation has never witnessed such a carnival of Sunday “desecration” as “we are having this present summer.” A large share of the blame the Statesman lays at the door of camp-meeting managers, and says:— AMS August 22, 1895, page 264.4
Church members do not feel their responsibility for the preservation of the sabbath as they should. Consistent loyalty to the Lord of the Sabbath requires separation from their sin. But it is clear that nothing short of statute law, properly enforced, will meet the necessities of the case as set forth above. AMS August 22, 1895, page 264.5
What a confession! Church members must be compelled by statute to manifest a “loyalty” for the Lord of the Sabbath which they do not feel! But is it any wonder, since the leaders of religious thought defiantly trample upon the real Sabbath, the Lord’s day of the Scriptures, heap contempt upon it, and attempt to compel the observance of a counterfeit without divine warrant? Is it any wonder, we say, that even members of Sunday-keeping churches do not respect the day? AMS August 22, 1895, page 264.6
APROPOS of the note from J. W. Scoles, relative to the conviction of five Adventists in Illinois, is the suggestion that it seems to make a deal of difference whose ox is gored. In those States where the statutes make no exception in favor of observers of another day, the courts seem to act their part very reluctantly, and only because it is their “duty” under the “law.” But in States having such exceptions the courts seem determined to find some way of evading the plain provisions of the statute so that the hated Adventists may be convicted right or wrong. It is simply the beginning of the end. AMS August 22, 1895, page 264.7