A SUNDAY law represents an effort to conform the world to the church; but such conformity always makes the church more like the world.AMS April 26, 1900, page 257.5

THE Omniscient made only one kind of Sabbath. It was left for human wisdom to discover the “necessity” for both a religious and a “civil” day.AMS April 26, 1900, page 257.6

THE purpose of civil law is not to force all people into uniformity of action; for such uniformity is both against liberty and against unity. Diversity, within proper limits, is much more desirable than uniformity.AMS April 26, 1900, page 257.7

THE physical needs of mankind do not demand rest upon Sunday more than upon any other day of the week; and the moral needs of mankind demand freedom of choice in the selection of the day.AMS April 26, 1900, page 257.8

THERE is as much reason for a civil law enforcing the first or the tenth precept of the Decalogue, as for one enforcing the fourth precept. One part of the divine law does not differ in character from another part.AMS April 26, 1900, page 257.9

THERE is nothing gained for the cause of religion by forcing men to pay a hypocritical homage to one of its institutions. Every religious law is against Christianity, because it creates hypocrisy, which is an antichristian thing.AMS April 26, 1900, page 257.10

“The ‘Two Arms’ of ‘Sabbath’ Reform” American Sentinel 15, 17, pp. 257, 258.

ATJ

IN a treatise on the “civil Sabbath,” the author, Rev. W. F. Crafts, sets up the claim that two different Sabbaths are essential in the work of Sabbath reform. He says:—AMS April 26, 1900, page 257.1

“The right arm, the most important part, of the Sabbath reform, is the promotion of the religious Sabbath; its left arm, the preservation of the civil Sabbath. These two things—the Christian Sabbath on the one hand, and the American Sabbath on the other—are as distinct as my two arms, that resemble and co-operate, and yet are by no means the same.”AMS April 26, 1900, page 257.2

This illustration does not fit the case. The religious Sabbath and the “civil” Sabbath, as Mr. Crafts views them, both fall on Sunday. Sunday is his religious Sabbath, and the same day is also the “civil” Sabbath. There are not two Sabbaths here, any more than there can be two arms consisting of the same piece.AMS April 26, 1900, page 257.3

“This distinction,” Mr. Crafts says, “is itself an answer to most of the objections to Sabbath laws, which rest chiefly upon the false assumption that they are enforcements of a duty to God, punishments of a sin against God.” The truth is that this “distinction” was discovered under the necessity of finding some answer to the objections to Sabbath laws, which would disguise the fact that such laws enforce a religious observance. The “distinction” has no existence in fact, and therefore no force against the objections at which it is aimed.AMS April 26, 1900, page 258.1

Sunday-law advocates say that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. Sunday is therefore, in their view, a religious day. If Sunday is a religious day, it cannot be a secular day, for “religious” and “secular” are opposite terms. If the character of Sunday has been fixed by the Lord, then no act or law of man can change its character. If on the other hand Sunday is not a religious Sabbath, then it is not the true Sabbath, and Christians of all people should be the last to desire its establishment in the place of the rightful day.AMS April 26, 1900, page 258.2

“It is admitted,” says Mr. Crafts, “that it is the province of civil law to enforce man’s duties to man, and especially to punish crimes against man. It is exactly on this ground that Sabbath laws forbid Sunday work and Sunday dissipation, namely, as crimes against man.” Assumption has usually to be supported by assumption, and this is an example,—the assumption of a “civil” Sabbath supported by the assumption that working on Sunday is a crime against humanity. If it were true that the rights of people were invaded by Sunday labor, it would of course be proper to forbid such labor by law, and there would be some ground for a “civil” Sabbath. But it is not true that Sunday labor interferes with any person’s rights. It is not true that such labor constitutes a “crime against man.” No labor that is not compulsory can invade personal rights.AMS April 26, 1900, page 258.3

The Constitution of the United States forbids involuntary servitude, save as a punishment for crime; and any person other than a criminal held in involuntary servitude in this country can appeal to the Constitution for relief. Involuntary servitude is recognized as an invasion of personal rights; but the person who works voluntarily cannot claim that his rights are infringed. He has the right to work, and the right to stop work, and that is as much as any man can have or desire in this respect.AMS April 26, 1900, page 258.4

As therefore Sunday labor in the United States is not involuntary, but is performed only by those having the full privilege of stopping work whenever they may choose, no rights are invaded by it; and no rights being invaded, no action is called for from the civil power which is established to preserve rights. Hence there is no ground for a civil decree commanding Sunday rest, and therefore no ground for the establishment of a “civil Sabbath.”AMS April 26, 1900, page 258.5

“Back Page” American Sentinel 15, 17, p. 272.

ATJ

THE trouble with workingmen in reference to Sunday work is not that they do not have the right to rest, but that they do not use the right. If they have the right and do not use it, the blame for their failure to enjoy the right falls on themselves. Where no right is invaded, no law to preserve rights is needed. There can be no just ground for Sunday laws while Sunday work remains a voluntary act.AMS April 26, 1900, page 272.1

Of course, many people are working on Sunday who would much prefer to rest on that day. But mere preferences do not constitute good ground for a law. The law can recognize rights, and distinguish between justice and injustice; but it cannot accommodate itself to people’s preferences. Preferences are not rights. A right represents justice; a preference often represents only mental or moral weakness. A preference not to work may represent only business. In the matter of Sunday labor it represents in some cases—perhaps in many—a conviction that Sunday work is morally wrong. But the law cannot undertake to carry out people’s conviction of right. Convictions are for the convicted person to carry out himself. The person who believes he ought to rest on Sunday in obedience to the will of God, should not require any further reason than the will of God for observing that day. God has spoken plainly on the subject of Sabbath observance; and to disobey God until the state speaks on the subject, is to set the state above God. For one who does this to plead conscientious convictions against Sunday labor, is not very consistent, to say the least.AMS April 26, 1900, page 272.2

THE right of one person to rest on Sunday does not demand for its preservation the loss of another person’s equal right to labor on that day. Every person is free to rest on Sunday, and there is no invasion of rights until there is introduced the compulsion of the law. It is compulsion that interferes with personal liberty, and the right denied is not the right of rest but the right of labor. This is a sacred right, and only tyranny will interfere with its enjoyment.AMS April 26, 1900, page 272.3

April 19, 1900

May 10, 1900