THE SUNDAY QUESTION.

It is related that once upon a time, a number of grave and reverend

rabbins earnestly disputed among themselves, whether it was lawful or

not to eat an egg that was laid upon the Sabbath day. In the minds of

some of these grave and wise masters it was held to be a prohibited

egg, but in the stomachs of others of their number such eggs were

held as too good to be despised.

In the Blue Laws of Connecticut by Rev. Sam Peters, we have Puritan

scruples put in rhyme:

"Upon the Sabbath day they'll no physick take,

Lest it should worke, and so the Sabbath breake."

There have always been great disputes over this subject which

we call in general terms the "Sunday Question." Why do so many

misunderstandings arise upon this matter? Simply because people

do not understand the question. Millions of devout worshippers use

the terms Sunday and Sabbath as if they were synonymous. Millions

of superstitious persons cherish obligations to maintain better

conduct on Sunday than on any other day in the week. They cannot

understand that it is fit and proper to do on Sunday anything that

it is fit and proper to do on any other day. The tendency to perform

the duties of life correctly on Sunday leaves room and disposition

not to perform them so well on the other six days of the week. Such

people live cream lives on Sunday and skim-milk lives all the rest

of the week. It won't do; because it tends to demoralize rather

than establish the noble sentiments of morality and manhood. If we

would know how to observe Sunday we must know something more about

it than we have unconsciously learned from the nursery stories of

our childhood. Let us begin with the names of

The Days of the Week.

We trace these names to our Saxon ancestors. By them the seven

days of the week were called Son-daeg, Moon-daeg, Tuis-daeg,

Woden's-daeg, Thurres-daeg or Thor's-day, Friga's-daeg, and

Seterne's-daeg. These were the names of ancient deities. As

seven planets and seven metals were at that time known--the sun,

the moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn being the

planets of astrology--a due allotment was made, gold was held

sacred to the sun, silver to the moon, iron to Mars, etc. Even

the portions of time were in a like manner dedicated; the seven

days of the week were respectively given to the seven planets of

astrology. The names imposed on these days, and the order in which

they occur, are obviously connected with the Ptolemaic hypothesis

of astronomy, each of the planets having an hour assigned to it in

its order of occurrence, and the planet ruling first the hour of

each day giving its name to that day. Thus arranged, the week is a

remarkable instance of the longevity of an institution adapted to

the wants of man. It has survived through many changes of empire

and has forced itself on the ecclesiastical system of Europe,

which, unable to change its idolatrous aspect, has encouraged the

vulgar error that it owes its authenticity to the holy scriptures;

an error too plainly betrayed by the Pagan names that the days

bear, and also by their order of occurrence. ("Intellectual

Development of Europe," by John W. Draper, vol. 1, p. 403.)

It is remarkable that every day of the week is by different nations

devoted to the public celebration of religious services:--Sunday

by the Christians, Monday by the Greeks, Tuesday by the Persians,

Wednesday by the Assyrians, Thursday by the Egyptians, Friday by the

Turks, Saturday by the Jews.

From a passage in Genesis, in which the first reference to a

Sabbath occurs, the inference has been drawn (an inference not

warranted by the text) that the first parents of the human

race were taught by God himself to divide time into weeks,

and to set apart a portion as a day of rest, and for religious

purposes. If so, it would of course follow that this institution,

or some traces of it, would be found among all nations; and

the impression, therefore, on the mind of a very large class

of persons, is a very natural one, that however much a Sabbath

may have fallen into disuse, or be now disregarded, the week of

seven days has been kept by all generations of mankind from the

days of creation, and continues to be observed in every part of

the world. ("Westminster Review," October 1850, p. 134.)

It is, however, true that observance of one day in seven as a day of

rest, recreation, and pleasure obtains in many countries. How then

did it come about if it was not revealed to man, that we keep in a

special manner

One Day in Seven?

The observance of a seventh part of the week is no more a revelation

than the multiplication table is. It was natural for man to measure

the spaces of time. The revolution of the earth, or from sun to sun

was a day, and from new moon to new moon was a month of twenty-eight

days. It was a most natural thing to have feasts at the full of the

moon and at new moon; between these times were the "horned moon,"

and this marked another division of time. It was easy to divide the

full moon into four periods, each of seven days. Hence originated the

observance of one day in seven. After the moon time had been divided

into four parts each of seven days and the days specifically named,

then the old phraseology of "new moon days" was dropped as it was no

longer needed.

There are two different reasons given for observing the Sabbath:

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. (Exodus 20 : 11.)

And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt,

and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a

mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy

God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day. (Deuteronomy 5 : 15.)

Here are two distinct and contradictory accounts given of the origin of

the Sabbath. According to the first, God instituted the Sabbath on the

seventh day of time, immediately after his six days of creation. But

if we are to believe the writer of Deuteronomy the Sabbath was set

up as a memorial day of the Jews' escape from Egyptian bondage; an

occurrence that took place something like two thousand five hundred

years after the year one, of creation. Both of these statements cannot

be correct, as one excludes the other. And in view of the fact that

man naturally learned to divide time into days, moons, and quarter

moons we are strongly inclined to think that both of these ancient

accounts are mythical.

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."

The word holy has lost its original signification. The Hebrew word

kadosh means "to set apart." Parkhurst renders it, "to separate,

to set apart from its common and ordinary to some higher use or

purpose." It is used in this sense in Genesis 4 : "And God divided

[i.e. separated] the light from the darkness."

The vessels of the sanctuary were to be "Holy unto the Lord;" that

is, they were to be kept strictly separate from other vessels, for

the sanctuary.

The saba or Sabbath was a day of rest, and the command to keep it

holy did not mean that it should be observed with solemnity, or

kept by offering sacrifices or in the performance of other religious

ceremonies. Other days were working days, but the Sabbath was to be

a day of rest.

"The word holy," says a modern writer on the Sabbath, "has now become

so associated in our minds with Puritanical ideas of self-mortification

and with modern religious forms of worship, that we are naturally

misled by it from the meaning of the original. Many pious persons

suppose that the command to keep the Sabbath day holy was equivalent

to an injunction to attend a parish church, hear two or more sermons

in the course of the Sunday and during the rest of the day to keep

in-doors and read the Bible. The Jews, however, did not do this, for

the Bible was not written, and sermons in its exposition (which would

have wanted texts) could not well be preached. Nor does it appear

from any passage in the books of Moses, that religious admonitions

or discourses of any kind formed a part of the tabernacle service."

The Jewish Sabbath was emphatically a day of rest. Work, therefore,

was strictly prohibited; for "Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath

day, he shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 31 : 15.)

This law was not so literal as subsequent interpreters have made

it. We have an account of only one person being put to death for this

crime. It is recorded in Numbers, 15 : 32-36 that "while the children

of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man that gathered sticks

upon the Sabbath day."

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses

and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should

be done to him.

And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death;

all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned

him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

This was the only case in all the Hebrew writings, of stoning a man

for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. But this single instance has

engendered an infinite amount of bitter persecution in the hearts of

the over-righteous, who keep the Sabbath holy and try also to make

their neighbors observe it in a like manner.

Sir Humphrey Davy relates in his "Salmonia," page 1,345, that he

"was walking on Arthur's Seat with some of the most distinguished

professors of Edinburgh attached to the geological opinions of the

late Dr. Hutton, a discussion took place upon the phenomena presented

by the rocks under our feet, and to exemplify a principle, Professor

Playfair broke some stones, in which I assisted the venerable and

amiable philosopher.

"We had hardly examined the fragments, when a man from the crowd,

who had been assisting at field-preaching, came up and warned us off,

saying, 'Ye think ye are only stane-breakers; but I ken ye are Sabbath

breakers, and ye deserve to be staned with your ain stanes.'"

Accidents which take place on Sunday are looked upon by some people as

"Judgments of God."

In Scotland on January 16th, 1603 the citizens were dreadfully

alarmed by an earthquake, on account of which a day of fasting

and humiliation was appointed by the magistrates and clergy. The

particular sin for which this scourge was thought to be sent,

was the custom of salmon-fishing on Sunday.

But this rigid feature of the Jewish Sabbath was of a negative

character, as the day was observed as a day of feasting and joy--a

day something like our Thanksgiving.

A variety of minor regulations referring to bodily indulgences

on that day, abundantly prove, if further proof were needed,

its recognized character as a "feast-day" in the natural and

general sense of the term, in Judaism. It was to be honored by

the wearing of finer garments, by three special meals of the best

cheer the house could afford; and it was considered a particularly

meritorious thing on the part of the master of the house to busy

himself personally as much as possible with the furnishing of

the viands, nay, the fetching of the very wood for the cooking,

so as to do as much honor to the "bride-sabbath" as in him lay.

Fasting, mourning, mortification of all and every kind, even

special supplicatory prayers are strictly prohibited. (Chamber's

Encyclopedia.)

If Sunday takes the place of the Sabbath, then the New Testament

would clearly reveal the fact; but it does nothing of the kind. If

the new religion was designed to take the place of the old, then we

should expect to find Jesus plainly teaching that after his death

Sunday should be observed in place of and as the Sabbath. But far

from this, we find him repudiating the Jewish Sabbath, and saying

nothing at all about a new day of ceremonies and worship.

We give a number of instances where Jesus intentionally repudiates

and violates the common usages respecting the Sabbath:

The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the

water is troubled to put me into the pool; but while I am coming,

another steppeth down before me.

Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and

walked: and on the same day was the Sabbath.

The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath

day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him,

because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. (John 5 :

7, 8, 9, 10 and 16.)

The Jewish law regarding the Sabbath was strict. It was not lawful

to carry burdens on that day.

Thus saith the Lord, Take heed to yourselves, and bear no

burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of

Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 17 : 21.)

And it came to pass that he went through the corn fields on the

Sabbath day; and his disciples began as they went to pluck the

ears of corn.

And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the

Sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them,

Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was a

hungered, he and they that were with him?

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high

priest, and did eat the shew-bread, which is not lawful to eat,

but for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?

And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man and not man

for the Sabbath. (Mark 2 : 23-27.)

Jesus had repeated conflicts with the Jews on this question. He would

not honor the Jewish Sabbath, and consequently the Jews made war upon

him, threatening to take his life.

And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal

on the Sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against

him. But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had

the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he

arose and stood forth.

Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful

on the Sabbath days to do good or to do evil? to save life or to

destroy it?

And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man,

Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so; and his hand was restored

whole as the other. (Luke 6 : 7-11.)

And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another

what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6 : 11.)

We read in Luke 13 : 11-14, that "there was a woman which had a spirit

of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no

wise lift up herself."

And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her,

Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.

And he laid his hands upon her; and immediately she was made

straight, and glorified God.

And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because

that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day, and said unto the people,

There are six days in which man ought to work; in them therefore

come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.

With the commandment before his eyes, saying: "Take heed to yourselves

and bear no burdens on the Sabbath day as I commanded your fathers,"

(Jeremiah 18 : 21), Jesus deliberately bade the cripple take up his

bed and walk, on the Sabbath day.

It is remarkable that those people who love to sabbatize so much,

and to make others do so too, do not see that while Jesus violated

intentionally the Jewish Sabbath, that he never gave his disciples the

slightest hint that they should observe Sunday in any manner whatever.

Paul, the founder of the Christian church, rejects the Sabbath.

Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in

respect of any holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath

days. (Colossians 2 : 16.)

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every

day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that

regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. (Romans

14 : 5, 6.)

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,

how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto

ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days and months and

times and years. (Galatians 4 : 9, 10.)

Bear in mind, reader, that there is not so much as a dot in the New

Testament in favor of substituting Saturday for the Jewish Sabbath,

or for observing it as a Sabbath day. Jesus and Paul both repudiate

it. The history of the church is against the use of Sunday as the

Sabbath.

St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, in the year 345, says: "Turn thou

not out of the way into Samaritanism or Judaism, for Jesus Christ

hath redeemed thee; henceforth reject all observance of Sabbaths,

and call not meats, which are really matters of indifference, common

or unclean."

St. Jerome, in the year 392, says: "On the Lord's day they went to

church, and returning from church they would apply themselves to their

allotted works and make garments for themselves and others. The day

is not a day of fasting, but a day of joy; the church has always

considered it a day of joy, and none but heretics have thought

otherwise."

Sir William Danville, in his "Six Texts," p. 241, says: "Centuries

of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed by

the Christian church as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with

a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed

previous to the sabbatical edict of Constantine in A. D. 321.

The Edict of Constantine.

In the code of Justinian lib. 3, title 12, sec. 2 and 3, we find the

first legal edict regulating the Sabbath:

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 and planting vines; lest the

critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities

granted by Heaven.

By a multitude of religious teachers of the present day, this decree

of Constantine is recognized as the foundation of all "Sabbath"

or "Lord's day" legislation; as the first recognition by the "body

politic" of the usages or institutions of Christianity. But nothing

can be more easily shown than that this decree was not made in the

interest of Christianity; that it did not respect the Sabbath or

Lord's day; and that it was not issued by a Christian ruler.

The reader will notice that the decree was partial; that it related

only to certain classes, leaving other classes to still pursue their

usual avocations; and that it was respecting "the venerable day of the

sun." Now we appeal with confidence to every student and reader of the

Bible, that in all the scriptures there is no such a day or institution

known as "the venerable day of the sun." And we affirm that, in this

decree, Constantine not only did not mention any Christian institution,

but he had no reference to any Christian institution.

On this point let such a reputable writer as Dr. Schaff testify:

He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as

dies Domini [Lord's day], but as dies solis [day of the sun],

in conformity to his worship of Apollo, and in company with

an ordinance for the regular consulting of the haruspex

(321). ("History of the Christian Church," vol. 2.)

The edict of the sun's day was issued March 7; that for consulting

the haruspex was issued the day following, March 8. This edict

of March 8 concerned the inspection of the entrails of beasts as

a means of foretelling future events. It was a heathen practice,

and the decree was a heathen edict, made by a heathen ruler. This of

itself is sufficient to show in what light we must regard his edict

for honoring "the venerable day of the sun."

Dr. Schaff says that Constantine issued his sun's day decree "in

conformity to his worship of Apollo." Who was Apollo, and what relation

did his worship bear to reverencing "the day of the sun?" Webster says:

"A deity among the Greeks and Romans, and worshiped under the name

of Phoebus, the sun."

Noted Men who have Rejected the Observance of Sunday as the Sabbath.

For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of

the observance of Sabbaths, feasts, and sacrifices, before Moses,

no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the

will of God, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has been born without

sin.--Justin Martyr.

They (the patriarchs) did not therefore regard circumcision

nor observe the Sabbath, neither do we; neither do we abstain

from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions which Moses

subsequently delivered to be observed in types and symbols, because

such things as these do not belong to Christians.--Eusebius.

As regards the Sabbath or Sunday, there is no necessity for

keeping it; but if we do, it ought not to be on account of Moses's

commandment, but because nature teaches us from time to time to

take a day of rest.... If anywhere the day is made holy for the

mere day's sake, then I order you to work on it, to dance on it,

to do anything that will reprove this encroachment on Christian

spirit and liberty.--Martin Luther.

The law of the Sabbath being thus repealed, that no particular

day of worship has been appointed in its place is evident.--Milton.

They who think that by the authority of the church, the observance

of the Lord's day was appointed instead of the Sabbath, as if

necessary, are greatly deceived.--Melancthon.

And truly we see what such a doctrine has profited; for those who

adopt it far exceed the Jews in a gross, carnal, and superstitious

observance of the Sabbath.--John Calvin.

These things refute those who suppose that the first day of the

week (that is, the Lord's day) was substituted in place of the

Sabbath, for no mention is made of such a thing by Christ or

his Apostles.--Grotius.

It will be plainly seen that Jesus did decidedly and avowedly

violate the Sabbath. The dogma of the assembly of divines at

Westminster, that the observance of the Sabbath is a part of the

moral law, is to me utterly unintelligible.--Archbishop Whately.

As for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may yet

change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need,

or make every tenth day a holy day only, if we see cause why. We

may make two every week, if it were expedient, and not one enough

to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change it

from Saturday than to put difference between us and the Jews,

and lest we should become servants unto the day, after their

superstition. Neither need we any holy day at all if the people

might be taught without it.--William Tyndall.

The effect of which consideration is, that the Lord's day did

not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was

wholly abrogated, and the Lord's day was merely an ecclesiastical

institution.--Jeremy Taylor.

The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always

a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the

Apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from

them and the early Apostolic church to transfer the laws of the

Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false

application of this kind had begun to take place, for men appear by

that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.--Neander.

Dr. McNight says: The whole law of Moses being abrogated by Christ,

Christians are under no obligation to observe any of the Jewish

holidays--not even the Sabbath. (Com. on Epistles, Col.)

Sabbath Engenders Cruelty.

The history of the Sabbatarians proves them to be both ignorant and

cruel. We have only to make a few quotations from standard authors

to prove the charge.

At the same time that James shocked in so violent a manner,

the religious principles of his Scottish subjects, he acted in

opposition to those of his English. He had observed, in his

progress through England, that a Judaical observance of the

Sunday, chiefly by means of the Puritans, was every day gaining

ground throughout the kingdom; and that the people under color

of religion, were contrary to former practice, debarred such

sports and recreations as contributed both to their health and

amusement. Festivals which in other nations and ages are partly

dedicated to public worship, partly to mirth and society, were

here totally appropriated to the offices of religion and served to

nourish those sullen and gloomy contemplations, to which the people

were of themselves so unfortunately subject. The king imagined

that it would be easy to infuse cheerfulness into the dark spirit

of devotion. He issued a proclamation to allow and encourage,

after divine service, all kinds of lawful games and exercises;

and by his authority he endeavored to give sanction to a practice

which his subjects regarded as the utmost instance of profaneness

and impiety. ("Hume's History of England," vol. 4, p. 447.)

Hume, speaking of the Puritans, remarks:

They [the house of commons] also enacted laws for the strict

observance of Sunday which the Puritans affected to call

the Sabbath, and which, they sanctified by most melancholy

indolence. (Vol. 5, p. 10.)

Besides this, it is important to remark that the Puritans were

more fanatical than superstitious. They were so ignorant of the

real principles of government, as to direct penal laws against

private vices. ("Buckle's History of Civilization in England,"

vol. 1, p. 261.)

The same spirit is rampant now in our prohibition laws, Sunday laws,

profane swearing laws, etc. Repressing vices does not extinguish them

but causes them to become more deep-seated and wide-spread. Moral

natures can be made more moral only by the use of moral means.

The Puritans.

Not dancers go to heaven, but mourners; not laughers but weepers;

whose tune is Lachrymae, whose music sighs for sin; who know

no other cinquepace but this to heaven, to go mourning all the

day long for their iniquities; to mourn in secret like doves,

to chatter like cranes for their own and others' sins. Fastings,

prayers, mourning, tears, tribulations, martyrdom were the only

sounds that led all the saints to heaven. ("Bayne's Chief Actors

in the Puritan Revolution," p. 112.)

Presbyterianism in Scotland was the twin of English Puritanism;

Presbyterianism prohibited all sorts of pleasure as being sinful and

of the Devil.

The following extracts are copied from Buckle's History of Civilization

in England, volume 2, page 304:

Smiling, provided it stopped short of laughter, might occasionally

be allowed; still, being a carnal pastime it was a sin to smile

on Sunday. It was wrong to take pleasure in beautiful scenery;

for a pious man had no concern with such matters which were

beneath him, and which should be left to the unconverted.

The unregenerate might delight in these vanities, but they who were

properly instructed saw nature as she really was, and knew that she,

for about five thousand years, had been constantly on the move, her

vigor was well nigh spent, and her pristine energy had departed. To

the eye of ignorance she still seemed fair and fresh; the fact,

however, was that she was worn out and decrepit; she was suffering

from extreme old age; her frame no longer elastic, was leaning on

one side, and she soon would perish.

Owing to the sin of man all things were getting worse, and nature

was degenerating so fast that already the lilies were losing their

whiteness and the roses their smell.

On this account, it was improper to care for beauty of any kind;

or to speak more accurately, there was no real beauty. The world

afforded nothing worth looking at save and except the Scotch Kirk,

which was incomparably the most beautiful thing under heaven. To look

at that was a lawful enjoyment but every other pleasure was sinful. To

write poetry, for instance, was a grievous offense, and worthy of

special condemnation. To listen to music was equally wrong; for men

had no right to disport themselves in such idle recreation. Hence the

clergy forbade music to be introduced even during the festivities of

a marriage.

Dancing was so extremely sinful that an edict expressly prohibiting

it was enacted by the General Assembly, and read in every church

in Edinburgh.

It was a sin for any Scotch town to hold a market either on Saturday

or Monday, because both days were near Sunday. It was a sin to go from

one town to another on Sunday, however pressing the business might

be. It was a sin to visit your friend on Sunday; it was likewise

sinful either to have your garden watered or your beard shaved.

No one, on Sunday, should pay attention to his health or think of his

body at all. On that day horse exercise was sinful; so was walking

in the fields or in the meadows, or in the streets, or enjoying the

fine weather by sitting at the door of your own house. To go to sleep

on Sunday before the duties of the day were over was also sinful and

deserved church censure. Bathing, being pleasant as well as wholesome,

was a particularly grievous offense; and no man could be allowed to

swim on Sunday.

It mattered not what man liked; the mere fact of his liking it made

it sinful. Whatever was natural was wrong. The clergy deprived the

people of their holidays, their amusements, their shows, their games,

and their sports; they repressed every appearance of joy, they forbade

all merriment, they stopped all festivities, they choked up every

avenue by which pleasure could enter, and spread over the country an

universal gloom.

On Sunday, in particular, he must never think of benefitting others;

and the Scotch clergy did not hesitate to teach the people that on

that day it was sinful to serve a vessel in distress, and that it was

a proof of religion to let ship and crew perish. They might go; none

but their wives and children would suffer, and that was nothing in

comparison with breaking the Sabbath. So, too, did the clergy teach,

that on no occasion must food or shelter be given to a starving man,

unless his opinions were orthodox.

Sunday Should be Regarded as a day of Rest and Recreation.

But every one should be protected in his individual liberty of choosing

how he shall rest and enjoy himself. My neighbors certainly have no

right to say how I shall conduct myself on Sunday, nor would they

have if they were elected to the state or national legislature. My

right to freedom of conscience is inalienable. It is true that I

may be robbed of my liberty by those in power. The Sunday laws are

the spoliation of the weak by the strong. A most remarkable trait of

this nation is that it is constituted more than any other people that

the sun ever shone upon of law makers and law breakers. It forebodes

national decay. The people who indulge in this spirit are lacking in

moral sentiment, and the current history of the politics and religion

of this country furnish a lamentable proof of the fact.

Unconstitutionality of Sunday Laws.

There is no provision in the constitution requiring the citizens

of the United States to observe Sunday in a religious manner; but

there are on the contrary, distinct and unqualified guarantees made

to secure the religious liberty of every one. Sunday is a day of

rest in the eyes of the Constitution but not a day of religious

worship. Constitutionally it is every one's privilege to spend

Sunday as he chooses. He may, if he wishes, go to Sunday-school,

class-meeting, preaching, prayer-meeting, and preaching again, and

thus employ all his time on Sunday in religious exercises; or if he

prefers, he need go only once to service and fall asleep as soon as

it begins. Others who desire it may visit the parks, green fields,

ride upon the cool waters or visit the libraries, museums, picture

galleries, zoological gardens and such other places of amusement

and instruction as they see fit. It is the right of every American

citizen to decide in what way he should pursue his own happiness.

We read in Article 6 of the Constitution, that "no religious test

shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust

under the United States." This foundation principle was supplemented

by a provision in the first amendment, which says: "Congress shall

make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting

the free exercise thereof."

What could be clearer than this, that the framers of the Constitution

intended to exclude all religious questions from the charter of

liberty? The Constitution recognizes the beliefs of neither Jew nor

Gentile--neither Christian nor Infidel.

The one special object of the framers of the Constitution was to

establish a free government, and especially did they aim to secure

to the people their individual rights, and no right was so greatly

in demand by the people as the right of a free conscience; the right

to exercise their own judgment upon questions of religion.

"We, the people of the United Slates, in order to form a more

perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,

provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and

secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States

of America."

The Declaration of Independence shows us that this question of

liberty was that which the framers of the Constitution were seeking

to establish: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all

men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with

certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and

the pursuit of happiness."

With these words of the Declaration of Independence before us and

the provision in Article 6 of the Constitution, namely, thus, "no

religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public

trust under the United States," and the further guarantee in the first

amendment, that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"--it is as clear

as a sunbeam that all laws seeking to enforce a religious observance

of Sunday are unconstitutional, and should not be executed; and where

attempts are made to bind religious observance of the day upon Liberal

people they should resist it as an intolerable despotism.

The different states of the Union have numerous Sunday laws, which

in most cases are a dead letter. Take for instance Massachusetts. In

its history seventy-five cases have been decided mostly in favor of

a rigid enforcement of its Sunday laws. But both laws and decisions

are powerless in controlling the people to observe Sunday as Sabbath.

The present laws of Massachusetts prohibit games, sports, concerts,

plays, work, travel, idling, fishing, hunting, buying and selling,

but no one feels bound to obey them. Occasionally some new society

springs up calling itself "The Society of Law and Order," and goes

to work to set the world right. The first thing to be done is to

enforce the Sunday laws, preventing barbers from shaving, milkmen from

distributing milk, newsdealers from selling papers, flower girls from

selling flowers, cigar stores from selling cigars, croquet players

from enjoying on their own premises an hour's exercise and amusement,

steamboats from carrying excursions from the city, ball players from

practicing their games, the angler from taking a few trout, and many

others from finding rest and recreation in other ways. But these good

people who think that the world is out of joint and they are called

to set it right, find it a greater task than they had bargained for,

and so they soon tire, and the old world wags along as it did before

the "Law and Order" society came into existence.

Sunday laws are a solemn farce, and a burning shame. They are a

warfare upon the rights of man, in the interest of ancient traditions

and modern despotism.

As for travel on the Lord's day, lo! how the people go their

journeys, take their pleasure rides, rattle over the streets with

their horse-cars, thunder through the villages past churches with

their locomotives, and plow the bogs and coastways with their

yachts and excursion steamers. Who questions the right? In the

line of sport and diversion, how common such things as boating

and fishing and hunting and ball playing and roving over pastures,

through woods, picking berries and gathering nuts, and attending

many a public entertainment to which an admittance fee is charged

and taken for purposes of gain, but whose character, however

sacred in name, is as secular as a banjo concert or a play

of the drama. No complaint. As regards traffic, do not livery

stable keepers let their horses as freely on Sundays as on week

days? Do not druggists sell as freely what they possess, whether

cigars or whisky, hairbrushes or perfumery? Do not hotels ply

their business as freely, always at the tobacco stand and often

at the bar? Do not newsboys run as loose with their shouts of

"Herald and Gazette?" While if you sail down of a Lord's day to

Martha's Vineyard, where "religion is the chief concern," shall you

not see cigar stores, fruit stores, toy stores, souvenir stores,

etc., undisguisedly open for business, and pedlars hawking canes

and gim-cracks unchallenged by any deacon or dignitary? When,

therefore, the legislature (of Massachusetts) enacted as late

as 1863 that whoever does any manner of work or business on the

Lord's day shall be punished by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars,

instead of a fine not exceeding ten dollars, the former penalty, it

would seem that the intention must have been to provide a penalty

commensurate with the gravest breaches of the statute. What are

these, if they be not the running of passenger and freight railway

trains, whose mercenary noise makes havoc of all Sunday calm and

quiet; the repairing of railway tracks and bridges, the gangs

of workmen oft so large and belligerent enough to take a city;

the repairing of machinery in shops and mills; the racket of the

press turning out Sunday editions of newspapers secular as politics

and earthly as a quack medicine advertisement? These truly are

open and most gross violations of the law, but against them what

murmur has been heard taking the form of prosecution? Nay, the

breaches of the law that are prosecuted and have been are for the

most part the petty breaches, while the more flagrant offenders,

as a rule, have offended with impunity and still so offend.

Considering, therefore, the sturdiness with which the people of

the commonwealth resist the law's repeal, and the indifference

with which they treat its violations, it must be confessed that

Artemus Ward's sarcasm, as applied to "prohibition," applies

here with peculiar force--in favor of the law, but against its

enforcement. ("The Sunday Law of Massachusetts," by a member of

the Massachusetts bar, p. 29.)

Puck, in its history of the United States, says: "The Puritans

instituted many beautiful customs, and they had some very remarkable

laws. They provided strict penalties against Sabbath breaking. On

Sunday, they decreed that every able-bodied man, woman, and child

in the country should go to church three times a day. They forbade

reading anything except the Bible, forbade walking in the fields, and

generally shut down on amusements. Then they called it the Lord's day,

and thus strove to make the Lord unpopular."

Ben. Franklin on Connecticut Sundays.

The following is an extract from a letter written by Dr. Franklin to

Jared Ingersoll of New Haven. The original is in the possession of

the New Haven Colony Historical Society:

Philadelphia, Dec. 11, 1762.

I should be glad to know what it is that distinguishes Connecticut

Religion from common Religion:--communicate, if you please, some of

these particulars that you think will amuse me as a virtuoso. When

I travelled in Flanders I thought of your excessively strict

observation of Sunday; and that a man could hardly travel on

that day among you upon this lawful occasion, without Hazard of

Punishment, while where I was every one travelled, if he pleased,

or diverted himself in any other way; and in the afternoon both

high and low went to the Play or to the Opera, where there was

plenty of Singing, Fiddling and Dancing. I looked round for

God's Judgments, but saw no signs of them. The Cities were well

built and full of Inhabitants, the Markets filled with plenty,

the People well favored and well clothed; the Fields well tilled;

the Cattle fat and strong; the Fences, Houses and Windows all in

Repair; and no Old Tenor anywhere in the Country:--which would

almost make one suspect that the Deity is not so angry at that

offence as a New England Justice.

B. Franklin.

If you have any inalienable rights your freedom of conscience must

be one of the most fundamental. That is, it is for you to say how

you will deport yourself on matters of religion. It is nothing

less than despotism for your neighbor to step up to you and say:

"Brother Jones, I want to see you at church to-day, and if you are

not there I will see to it that there is a law passed which will make

you attend church." This is what the Puritans actually did. They did

it all for the glory of God, but our modern Puritans, the orthodox,

seek to stop milk wagons from delivering milk on Sunday morning,

flower girls from selling flowers on the streets of New York, all

because of the welfare and purity of society. In several cities in

Texas the sale of cigars on Sunday is a violation of the law.

But where do these members of the state and national legislatures get

their power from? Do they have any except that which is delegated to

them by the people? They do not get the power from the people to usurp

their inalienable rights. But here is a legislature passing laws upon

the religious observance of Sunday, who have never been instructed

to secure the enactment of such laws. And even if ninety-nine out of

a hundred should so instruct their representative, the law could not

be binding upon the one hundredth person who did not so instruct his

(mis)representative in congress. He can be made to obey by their

brute force. And this is what legislation amounts to generally. The

people are not represented by the law makers, but their interests

and rights are invaded one after another until the poor people are

subjugated. Among the rights of man perhaps there is none which is

more generally recognized abstractly, and more frequently violated

practically, than his right to freedom of conscience, or, in other

words, his religious liberty. How does this come about? One of the

principal reasons for this anomaly is that most people think that

we ought to obey without question the will of the majority. They

seem to think that an enactment by congress settles the question,

whatever it may be.

Here is the secret of the Sunday legislation. The church is a spiritual

despotism always seeking to materialize. It is in the nature of power

of all kinds to seek for more power. As a spiritual despotism the

church is not a success. The nineteenth century has said to this mental

and moral Lazarus, "Take up thy bed and walk." But it has no place

to walk to, and hence it refuses to obey the voice of humanity. It

is slowly, however, undergoing the transformation of a dissolving view.

A Common Sense View of the Sunday Question.

Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the

Sabbath. Now, at first sight, this seems a true and wise saying,

but upon reflection we are forced to modify our estimate of it. In

the first place there is no evidence that the Sabbath was ever made

at all. It is the result of many things. The causes assigned for

the institution of this day are conflicting. One reason assigned is

because the Lord rested on the seventh day and was refreshed. It is

a very empty noddle that can believe that statement. Such a childish

view of creation would remind us of some one who had carried a heavy

load up six flights of stairs, and then sat down puffing and blowing

until he was rested and refreshed. Fancy an omnipotent being tired,

hungry, and sleepy. A common sense view of the creation story leads

us to reject it all as a myth.

Another reason assigned for the origin of the Sabbath is that it was

instituted in commemoration of God's deliverance of the Hebrews out of

Egypt. But this is a flat contradiction of the previous reason given

for observing the Sabbath. This contradiction is enough to invalidate

the evidence of both these testimonies; but that is not all--the first

story about God Almighty being tired after a week's hard work, and

his resting and being refreshed on the seventh day, is so evidently

a myth as to need no argument. It is on a par with all stories about

the man in the moon, and the bit of legend recounting the escape of

the Hebrews from Egypt is full of contradictions and impossibilities

which renders the story absolutely useless as a piece of evidence.

No one knows when or where the observance of the seventh day as a day

of rest and recreation began. It doubtless had small beginnings in

different countries and different times, and has been subject to the

law of evolution. The Sabbath was not a man-made product, but grew

in character and importance as time rolled on. Therefore it is not

true to say the Sabbath was made for man. All the making we see in

history is what the priests have done in this direction. While it is

not true that the priests originated the Sabbath, yet it is true so

far as we can trace the existence of the priesthood that we find them

continually making the day a day for themselves. Sunday is priests'

day. Everybody must go to church to listen to an ignorant man talk,

scold, misrepresent, and abuse everyone who does not believe as

he does. And this is called Divine Service. When the priest rests

temporarily from his labors upon the sinner and the skeptic, he trains

his guns upon some of those who profess as strongly as himself to be

true blue Christians. Take the extremes; the Salvation Army saint and

a fashionable member of the fashionable Episcopal church. The latter

looks down upon the former and calls them "trash, rubbish," and other

classical names, while the soldier of the temporal army returns the

compliment by styling his brethren of the Episcopal persuasion as

"the Devil's dudes." Behold! how these Christians love--to go for

one another.

We have seen that there is no history for the institution of the

Sabbath. We have learned also that to keep this day holy did not mean

to attend preaching or prayer-meetings, or special religious services

of any kind.

We have discovered that the Jewish Sabbath was not incorporated into

the early Christian church. We have seen also that Jesus repudiated

the Jewish Sabbath. That Paul, the founder of the church, also rejects

the Sabbath; and that the early fathers did not observe it. That

the great men of the middle ages repudiated it. It was left for the

Puritans and Scotch Presbyterians to bewilder the undeveloped mind

and poison the susceptible hearts of the people, by teaching the

gloomy doctrines of Puritanism and Presbyterianism. Puritanism and

Presbyterianism die hard. They still live. Their spirit is hostile to

freedom. Talk to them of liberty and you will readily wake the remark,

"Oh yes, we believe in liberty, but not in license." Now what does

license mean with such people? Why it means that you shall conform

to their religious notions and practices.

Especially must you remember the Sabbath to keep it holy; that is,

you are at liberty to do just as you please, if you please to do as

pleases them.

Protestants all agree upon the right of free conscience, the right

to believe as one chooses (which however he never can do, because he

must believe according to evidence).

It is the great boast of Protestantism that the individual has a free

will (another error), and that he must search the scriptures, and

decide for himself. They say every man has an open Bible put before

him, and he must make up his own mind on the "truth of God." When he

has made up his mind, and seeks to enter a church which is full of

liberty, what do the officers of the church say to him? Do they tell

him that his conscience is free and the Bible is an open book for him

to read and interpret as he can? Oh, no! There is no free conscience,

or open Bible business when one is getting into a church. On such

occasions the candidate is taken by the proper officers into an ante

room, and placed upon a Procrustean bed usually called a creed, and

if he is the proper length, all right, but if not he must either be

stretched or sawed off to the proper dimensions. And these are the

people who have such a holy horror of license.

A friend of mine went once to buy a pup. The price was five dollars;

but as there were three pups in the basket my friend said he would

give five dollars for one if he could have his choice. "Oh yes, you

can have your choice," said the owner, "if ye'll choose this pup"

[pointing to the most inferior one in the basket]. So it is with

the church; you can have all the liberty in the world to believe,

if you believe the doctrines of this or that sect. You can have your

own choice, if you choose to obey the priesthood. You can have all

the liberty to think as freely as you can on all subjects, if you

will never mention your thoughts. Here is what M. Guizot, an eminent

Christian writer has to say about the liberty granted by the church:

When the question of political securities came into debate

between power and liberty; when any step was taken to establish a

system of permanent institutions, which might effectually protect

liberty from the invasions of power in general; the church always

ranged herself on the side of despotism. ("Guizot's History of

Civilization," p. 130.)

With some people almost every act, if it be not strictly religious,

is a desecration of the Lord's day. It is a solemn day, and for one

to smile is a desecration of the holy day, while laughing is gross

wickedness. To entertain one's friends on Sunday or to enjoy music,

is carnal and therefore a desecration of the Lord's day. To love

flowers is evidence of depravity; to admire the beauties of nature,

as a golden sunset, or a summer's sunrise, are palpable evidences of

being a "man of sin." To do anything but attend church, look solemn,

mourn and pray, weep and read the Bible, is of the Devil.

What a spectacle that man presents to the world who is struggling

for perfection through religious beliefs and exercises. He never gets

exactly there, but confidently and complacently thinks himself there

or thereabouts. His next great work is to call upon others in life's

highway to follow in his footsteps. He gets some followers who join

with him in thanking God that they are not as other men are. Their

self-righteousness becomes intense, and they become filled with the

spirit of the Lord and preach believe (as we do) or be damned. Then

begins persecution and torture. It is always your "dead-in-earnest"

man that gets up persecutions. He is trying to gain perfection, and the

natural ripe fruit of religious perfection is bigotry, intolerance,

and despotism. Beware, oh! reader, of him who is seeking perfection,

for you are nothing better than a worm under his heel, and if he

does not crush you, it is because he is better than his God. God will

crush you in the next world for not agonizing for perfection in this.

Everybody's Sunday.

I quote the following from "The Sabbath Question," a very able pamphlet

by my esteemed friend, Alfred E. Giles:

We prize Sunday as a Sabbath or rest day. But it is a physiological

fact that the cessation from action that refreshes or rests

some persons on that day, does not so operate on everybody. We

would that Sunday should be a joy, a delight to all the people;

that every man, woman, and child should anticipate its approach

with pleasure. On that day, if on no other, let the edifices of

the church be open free to all who love its praises, prayers, and

instructions. Let the tables and alcoves of the public library be

accessible to such persons as feel that they can find suitable

mental and spiritual food. If the social science association,

now active in promoting good fellowship and liberal feeling,

desire to, let it also add its proportion of good things to

the feast of the day. Let the art museums, halls of science,

academies of music, public parks, and galleries of paintings

disclose their treasures on Sundays freely to visitors. Let all

persons be unmolested on that day to seek the enjoyment and kind of

rest they may respectively need, they alone being judges thereof,

always provided that no one shall infringe on the equal liberty

of any other person.

"Rest is not quitting

The busy career--

Rest is the fitting

Of self to its sphere;

'Tis loving and serving

The highest and best--

'Tis onward, unswerving,

And that is true rest."