The Signs of the Times, vol. 10

August 28, 1884

“Civil or Religious, Which?” The Signs of the Times 10, 33, pp. 514, 515.

REV. W. F. CRAFTS has been preaching lately, in the First Congregational Church, Chicago, a series of sermons in favor of Sunday laws; and the fact that the daily Inter-Ocean reports these verbatim, sometimes occupying more than five columns, is an indication of the prominence that this subject is assuming in public affairs. The report of the sermon of Sunday evening, August 3, it is before us, some points of which we propose to notice. SITI August 28, 1884, page 514.1

As is usual in the discussion of this question nowadays, he tries to make it appear that Sunday laws and their enforcement have nothing to do with religion, but have “relation to health, education, home virtue, and patriotism,” and his attempt is crowned with the usual success of such efforts, that is, to prove emphatically the contrary. He says: “Such a day [as is secured by well-enforced Sabbath laws] causes rich and poor to meet on the platform of”—What suppose you, my reader? On the platform of “health” interests? of “educational” interests? of the blessings of the home virtue? on the platform of “patriotism”? Not at all. But “causes rich and poor to meet on the platform of religious equality.” Yet Sunday laws well-enforced have no relation to religion! SITI August 28, 1884, page 514.2

Again; “Liberty allows the majority no right... to enforce its religion upon others. But inasmuch as more than three-fourths of the population are members or adherents of Christian churches, and so accustomed to set apart the first day of each week for rest and religion; and inasmuch as it is the conviction of this majority that the nation cannot be preserved without religion, nor religion without the Sabbath, nor the Sabbath without lost, therefore Sabbath laws are enacted,” &c. Let us analyze this. (a) The nation cannot be preserved without religion. (b) But religion cannot be preserved without the Sabbath. (c) But the Sabbath cannot be preserved without laws. Now if these laws are to preserve the Sabbath that the Sabbath a preserve religion, it inevitably follows that all such laws are enacted in the interests of religion solely. SITI August 28, 1884, page 514.3

Again; “Sabbath laws for protecting the worshiping day of the prevailing religion,.. are vindicated.” And so he goes on through his whole sermon, insisting all the time that Sunday laws must have “no relation to religion,” yet proving by every line of argument, in spite of his propositions, and in spite of logic, that such laws are wholly in the interests of religion. So it is, and always will be, with every one who attempts the task. All this goes to show that the animus of the whole discussion is the Sunday as a religious institution, and the enforcement of its observance as such. A further illustration of this is seen in the above quotation. Notice, he says the “majority has no right to enforce its religion upon others.” Then without the slightest break, or hesitation, he goes right forward and declares that a majority “are members or adherents of the Christian churches, and have set apart the first day of each week,” &c., &c., and winds up with the demand for laws for the enforcement of Sunday for the preservation of religion, an obedience to the will that majority. The gentleman’s logic is about as badly mixed as are his metaphors in that place where he sees the “infidel iconoclast,” that is one breaking an image, and cries out, not in tones of a entreaty, but of command, ‘Woodman, spare that tree.’” SITI August 28, 1884, page 514.4

After all this we are not surprised to find him sanctioning an exposition (?) of the first amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” He calls it “that much misunderstood article of the National Constitution” and says: “President Charles E. Knox, D.D., of the German Seminary at Bloomfield, N.J., in a very able paper on the ‘Attitude of Our Foreign Population toward the Sabbath,’ urges that this amendment needs to be expounded everywhere to our foreign population. It should be shown to them that while Congress possesses no law-making power in respect to an establishment of religion, it may, and does, and always has, passed laws which have respect to religion.” Then our foreign population are to be informed, are they, that Congress “may, and does, and always has,” violated the Constitution? That would be an exposition of this article indeed. This will be news to the National Reform Association, too, as well as to the rest of us. We feel almost sure that if Dr. Crafts can convince that association of the truth of this exposition, he will be promoted to great honor. However, we doubt his ability to do it. First, because this statement of Mr. Knox is notoriously false; and secondly, because the idea advanced by Mr. Crafts himself that the enactment of Sabbath laws is “not in violation of this article,” stands contradicted by the United States Senate, in that, when in 1830 it was positioned to legislate on this very subject of Sunday, it declared that such action would be unconstitutional. SITI August 28, 1884, page 514.5

Nor is the gentleman any more successful in his exposition of Constantine’s edict. After referring to the words of Moses in connection with the Sabbath, “that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou,” he says: “Constantine gave substantially the same reasons for the first Sabbath law enacted in Europe. It was a law to protect slaves and peasants in their right to Sabbath rest.” From this we can only wonder whether Mr. Crafts ever read Constantine’s law to which he refers. So far from its being the “first Sabbath law enacted in Europe,” it was not a Sabbath law at all. It commanded rest on the “venerable day of the sun.” It was the sun that was to be honored. If he had said this was the first Sunday law enacted in Europe he would not have been far wrong. But to make it a Sabbath law, is as utterly at variance with the truth as is the statement that “it was a law to protect slaves and peasants in their right to Sabbath rest.” A peasant is one who lives in the country, one who lives by rural labor. Now read Constantine’s law and see how much protection it gave the peasant, and the slave. Here it is—“Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn or planting vines; last, the critical moment been let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven. Given the seventh day of March; Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each of them for the second time.” It is exceedingly difficult to conceive how any honest man who ever read that edict at all, could state that it was to “protect slaves and peasants,” when they were the very ones to whom it gave no protection whatever; the very ones who, by the terms of the edict itself, were excluded from its protection. SITI August 28, 1884, page 515.1

And it is by such methods as these that the national Sunday laws to be brought about, methods that have been them every element of dishonesty. But the methods are worthy of the cause in which they are enlisted, and the institution which by them is sought to be upheld. “Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey; and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.” Isaiah 59:14, 15. SITI August 28, 1884, page 515.2

Other points we reserve till another occasion. SITI August 28, 1884, page 515.3

ALONZO T. JONES.