SUNDAY LEGISLATION
Whence came Sunday Legislation? What is its origin? What is its character? What does it mean to the people of the States, of the United States, and of the world? These questions are pre-eminently pertinent everywhere in the United States today; for in the States and in the Nation, Sunday Legislation is universally demanded; before Congress and State legislatures Sunday legislation is constantly urged. Also for another reason these questions are not only pertinent, but all important. That reason is that it is through Sunday legislation that all the autocracies, all the governments of law, all the unions of Church and State, and all the churches as such, and to be enlisted and combined under the pressure of denominational, national, international, and world Federation of religion, for the domination of the whole world in religion. The whole movement for the federation of the world in religion, culminates pre-eminently in the one thing of Sunday observance, and this by law.
The first legislation in behalf of Sunday was that by Constantine; and it originated in the church and was enacted solely upon the initiative and the demand of the bishops. This is certain, not only from the provisions of the legislation itself, but also from all the facts and circumstances of the legislation, and from the whole history of the time, as well as of the legislation. The first legislation on the subject was about the year A.D. 314, and included Friday as well as Sunday. And the intent of the legislation was specifically religious, for it provided and ordered that on Friday and on Sunday "there should be a suspension of business at the courts and in other civil offices, so that the day might be devoted with less interruption to the purposes of devotion." Such is Neanders's paraphrase of the statement of Sozomen respecting this first of all legislation in behalf of Sunday observance; and it shows that the only intent of the legislation was religious. But Sozomen's words themselves as we have them in English in Professor Walford's translation, really intensify the religious character of the legislation. Here they are:-
---Sozomen's "Ecclesiastical History," Book I, Chap. VIII.
In the second step in Sunday legislation, in the law Constantine issued A.D. 321, Friday was dropped and Sunday stood alone. The scope of the law was now extended to include not only courts and other State offices, but also the "people residing in cities" and "such as work at trades." And still the intent of it was unqualifiedly the same; for Eusebius, one of the bishops who had most to do with the legislation, says of it:--
"Sacrilege" is not in any sense a civil, but in every sense only a religious, offense. Thus on the face of the legislation itself it is perfectly plain that there was neither in it, nor about it, in any way, any other than an exclusively religious intent. Yet we are not left with only this evidence, all-sufficient as it would be in itself. By the very ones who initiated and promoted and secured the legislation, there is given the positive assurance that the intent of the legislation was exclusively religious, and specifically so. Again, Bishop Eusebius is the one who assures us of this, as follows, referring to Constantine in this connection;--
--"History of Rome," Chap. CII, Part I, par.4 from end.
This original Sunday legislation was but part of the grand ambition and scheme of the popular church of the time through politico-ecclesiastical connivance and intrigue with Constantine to establish a "kingdom of God" on earth; and this in the very thought and purpose of an earthly theocracy. For there had in fact arisen in the church " a false theocratical theory . . . which might easily result on the formation of a sacerdotal State, subordinating the secular to itself in a false and outward way." This theoretical theory was already the prevailing one in the time of Constantine; and "the bishops voluntarily made themselves dependent on him by their disputes and by their determination to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims."--Neander. Accordingly the whole scheme of a human theocracy in imitation of the original and divine one in the Scriptures, was definitely worked out by the bishops; and through Sunday legislation was made effective. This is absolutely unmistakable and undeniable in the history of the time. It is the plain thread-thought of the whole ecclesiastical literature of the time; and stands crystallized in Bishop Eusebius's "Life of Constantine." The church was Israel in Egypt oppressed by the Pharaoh Maxentius, and Constantine was the new Moses who delivered this new oppressed Israel. The defeat of Maxentius by Constantine in the battle of the Milvian Bridge, and his drowning in the Tiber, was the overthrow of Pharaoh in the sea, and his "sinking to the bottom like a stone." After this deliverance of the new Israel by this new Moses, the new Moses with the new Israel went on to the conquest of the heathen in the wilderness, to the full establishment of the new theocracy, to the entering of the promised land, and to the saints of the Most High taking the kingdom. Accordingly, by the new Moses a tabernacle was set up, and a priesthood an imitation of the divine original in the Scriptures was established. And still in imitation of that divine original in the scriptures, Sunday was by law made the sign of this new and false theocracy, as the Sabbath was and is the sign of the original, the true, and the divine Theocracy. And this was done with this direct intent; for we have it so stated in the words of Bishop Eusebius himself who was one of the chief ones in the doing of it. Here are his words:--
1. "the Origin and Character;"
The exclusively and specifically religious and ecclesiastical character of the original Sunday legislation being a positive fixture, the question next arises, Has Sunday legislation ever lost that exclusive and specific religious and ecclesiastical character? First of all, how could that character possibly be lost? That being its native and inherent character; that being absolutely the only character that it ever had; it is perfectly plain that this character simply never could be lost. As certainly as the thing survives at all, its native and inherent character is there. Therefore, wherever, to the world's end, Sunday legislation shall be found, its native and inherent religious and ecclesiastical character inevitably attaches to it. That is true in the very principle and nature of the case. But let us trace the thing historically and see how completely the principle is manifested. The "sacerdotal State," in the erection of which the original Sunday legislation was such a potent factor, did, all over Europe and for more than a thousand years, "subordinate the secular to itself," and did thus most despotically "make use of the power of the State--every State--for the furtherance of her aims." In all this dismal time Sunday legislation was continued, and with no pretence of any other than its original, native, and inherent, religious and ecclesiastical character. In 1533 Henry VIII divorced himself and England from the Pope of Rome. But that was all: for, to what then and thus became "The Church of England" Henry immediately stood as pope in the place of the pope. By statute it was ordered that the king "shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head on earth of the church of England." And in 1535 Henry assumed officially the title "On earth supreme head of the Church of England." That which was now the Church of England was only that which before had been the Catholic Church in England. "In form nothing had been changed. The outer constitution of the Church remained unaltered." -Green. And in this same unchanged system the original papal Sunday legislation was continued, and has been continued to the present day: and still with no pretence or suggestion of anything else than as in its original, native, and inherent, religious and ecclesiastical character. From England there spread colonies to America. In America these colonies were established by English charters, and so were but the extension here of the English Government. And in strict accord with the English system, and in plain extension of it, every colony established in America, except only Rhode Island, had an established religion: either in the form of "the Christian religion" in general, or else, as in most, in the form of some particular church. And in every one of these colonial religious establishments in America, there was extended, and in some there was even intensified, the Sunday legislation of the English system, which was only the extension of the Sunday legislation of the original Roman and papal system. And still here, as always before in England and in Rome, the Sunday legislation of the colonies in America was never with any thought or purpose, or pretence, other than as in its original, native, and inherent, religious and ecclesiastical character. Presently these colonies cut loose from the government of Britain and became "free and independent States." But still each of them was the same as before in its system of established religion and Sunday legislation. Virginia, however, immediately dis-established there the Church of England and her religion: and as regards established religion as such swept it all away by "An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom." Yet on the statute books of the now State of Virginia there stood and remained unmodified the identical Sunday legislation of the Colony of Virginia, which was only the unmodified Sunday legislation of the English Church-and-State-system, which was only the unmodified Sunday legislation of the Roman and papal system in its old, original, native, and inherent, religious and ecclesiastical character. And the story of Virginia in this is substantially the story of every other of the original Thirteen States; excepting always Rhode Island. And the Sunday legislation of all the States of the Union, after the original Thirteen, has been only the extension, and practically the copying, of the Sunday legislation of the original Thirteen States that had it. And in this bad progress even Rhode Island has been perverted and disgraced. And always this Sunday legislation of the later States has been of the same original native and inherent religious and ecclesiastical character of that of the Colonies, of England, and of Rome. Thus, from the original Sunday legislation of Constantine to the Latest Sunday legislation in the United States, it is all the sane thing, to the same purpose, and of the same character precisely.
Then came the formation of the National Government of the United States with its total separation of religion and the State, and its constitutional provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This principle of the national Constitution with the preceding "Act for Establishing Religious Freedom," in Virginia, has been the guide in the formation of the Constitutions of all the States of the American Union, after the original Thirteen: and even the Constitutions, though not the legislation, of the original Thirteen States have been materially shaped by it. And so faithfully has this guidance been followed, and so generally has the principle been recognized throughout the whole American Union, that, as summarized, the case stands thus:-- "Those things which are not lawful under any of the American Constitutions may be stated thus:
"2. Compulsory support, by taxation or otherwise, of religious instruction. "3. Compulsory attendance upon religious worship. "4. Restraints upon the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience. "5. Restraints upon the expression of religious belief.
"These and the prohibitions which in some form of words are to be found in the American Constitutions, and which secure freedom of conscience and of religious worship. No man in religious matters is to be subject to the censorship of the State or of any public authority." "The legislators have not been left at liberty to effect a union of Church and state, or to establish preferences by law in favor of any religious persuasion or mode of worship. There is not complete religious liberty where any one sect is favoured by the State and given advantage by law over other sects." "Whatever establishes a distinction against one class or sect is, to the extent to which the distinction operates unfavourably, a persecution; and if based on religious grounds, a religious persecution. The extent of the discrimination is not material to the principle; it is enough that it creates an inequality of right or privilege."
That it is unconstitutional has been admitted by both State and United States Courts. The Supreme Court of Ohio said plainly that "if religion were the sole ground of Sunday legislation, it could not stand for a moment" under the Constitution. And a United States District Court has remarked upon the "somewhat humiliating spectacle of the Sunday Advocates trying to justify the continuance of Sunday legislation . . . upon the argument that it is not in conflict with the civic dogma of religious freedom," when "It surely is"; and says that "the potentiality of the fact that it is in aid of religion might be frankly confessed and not denied." And the latter court distinctly recognized it, in very word, as "persecution."
And yet all over the United States Sunday legislation is held by courts to be constitutional! How can this be? The answer is that it is solely by judicial invention and fiat. * Note: It is not by judicial constitutions or interpetation of the Constitutions, but wholly by judicial invention and fiat as to the character of the legislation. That is to say: By judicial invention and fiat an utterly new and foreign character is given to Sunday legislation; and then upon this new and foreign ground the legislation is held to be constitutional. If this new and foreign ground were in truth the original and native ground, even then the constitutionality of such legislation would be open to question. But not in any sense is the new and foreign ground true. It is a sheer invention, and false both as to principle and to the facts. This judicial invention and fiat of new and foreign ground for Sunday legislation is the proposition that it is for the physical benefit, for the promotion of the health and for the restoration of the wasted energies, of the people; that "it is for the protection of labour," and so is constitional "as a police regulation" and a "purely civil rule"! Now, everybody who knows but [only] the A B C of Sunday legislation, knows full well that no Sunday law in the world was ever enacted with any such intent, or for any such purpose, or upon any such ground, as that; but that every Sunday law ever in the world was enacted solely because of its religious and ecclesiastical character, with every physical and civic element specifically excluded. The State of Idaho is an illustration in point, and being the very latest, is strictly pertinent. In the very spirit, and with the very aim, of the bishops in the time of Constantine, an ecclesiastical clique, not of the State of Idaho, framed for Idaho a Sunday Bill and carried it to the legislature of Idaho and got it enacted into the law of Idaho. And then under a Constitution declaring that.....
"Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion."
Thus with Sunday legislation actually framed by ecclesiastics with no other than religions and ecclesiastical intent, and with constitutional provisions framed with direct intent to prohibit it, the courts by sheer judicial invention and fiat make it "constitutional." But every such decision is plainly in open disregard of one of the very first principles, and of "the universally admitted rule," of judicial action--the principle and the rule, that "the intention of that law-maker is the law"; that "the law must be construed according to the intention of the law-maker is the law"; and that "a law can have no meaning beyond the intent of those who made it." This principle, that must ever, in justice, guide in the construction of statutes as well as constitutions, is authoritatively stated as follows:--
Yet even this invention and fiat of new and foreign ground for Sunday legislation, is not allowed to exclude the original and native religious ground of it. This invention, in fact, is only the stalking-horse by which Sunday legislation as religious(,) can be brought in and made to stand as "constitutional" under constitutional provisions that absolutely prohibit it. For no sooner has it in each instance been made "constitutional" as "purely a civil rule" than it is immediately given standing as religious by the declaration that "the fact that the legislation is founded in religion" and is "the peculiar feature of Christianity," "is nothing against it, but rather is strongly in its favor." Thus, under Constitutions prohibiting religious legislation, by sheer sleight of judicial legerdemain the feat is accomplished of making "constitutional" legislation that is wholly religious and ecclesiastical.
But against it all there still stands the abiding truth that Sunday legislation is unconstitutional everywhere in the United States, because of its religious character. The inventing of a "civil basis" for it in order to render it constitutional, only leaves it still unconstitutional because of its original, native, and inherent religious and ecclesiastical character. In other words, when the Constitution guarantees absolute freedom from all religious observances, restrictions, or provisions, by law required, then any religious character whatever attaching to any law renders it unconstitutional for that reason. The Constitution is the supreme expression of the will of the people in the government. And when that supreme will excludes from legislation all things religious, then this supreme will can not be evaded by the mere trick of inventing a "civil basis" for a religious thing. By such trick every religious thing ever heard of could be made constitutional and enforced upon all: and the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom would thus be turned into a tantalizing figment. Therefore, instead of the "religious ground of Sunday observance being nothing against, but rather in favor of, Sunday legislation as a civil rule," the truth is that this is the strongest possible objection against it; so strong indeed that this alone nullifies it, whatever might be its "civil" nature or necessity.
"The Constitution says that `the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State.' ... The constitutional question is a naked question of legislative power. Had the legislature the power to do the particular thing done? What was that particular thing? --It was prohibition of labour on Sunday. Had the Act been so framed as to show that it was intended by those who voted for it, as simply a municipal regulation; yet, if, in fact, it contravened the provision of the Constitution securing religious freedom to all, we should have been compelled to declare it unconstitutional for that reason." --Ex-parte ewman.
It is undeniable then, that Sunday legislation is religious and ecclesiastical, and, as such, and under whatever plea, is unconstitutional and "a persecution" everywhere in the United States. But even if it were constitutional here, as it is in England and France and Spain and Russia, it would still be wrong. As religious and ecclesiastical, Sunday legislation is wrong of itself and never can by any possibility be right. King Nebuchadnezzar, as against the three Hebrew young men, made a law having a religious basis and character. But God taught him and all kings and people forever, that it was wrong. The Medo-Persian government, as against Daniel, enacted a statute of inflexible law having a religious basis and character. But God taught that government and all governments and people forever that it was wrong. And as for the church "making use of the power of the State for the furtherance of her aims," which could not possibly be with any other than religious intent--that by this slimy, serpentine, trick there was accomplished by the church her "aim" at the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory, this is sufficient demonstration to the wide universe and for eternity that such combination and the procedure under it is supremely and satanically wrong. Thus there is a higher law and a mightier Authority than any of earth; that is the will and authority of God. Religion is the duty which intelligences owe to their Creator, and the manner of discharging that duty. The religion therefore, of every soul stands only between him and the Sovereign of the soul. Therefore, though Sunday legislation were constitutional in every State or government on earth, still, as being religious, it would be altogether wrong; because it is an invasion of the realm, and a usurpation of the authority and jurisdiction, of God.
There are just two authorities to whom, as respects law or government, anybody in the world is under any obligation to render anything. These two are God and Caesar. Accordingly the Lord Jesus declared this truth thus: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Sunday legislation and Sunday observance come from neither God nor Caesar. It is not of God; for, as the evidence shows, in the very beginning of it, it was set up as the sign of the false and human theocracy of the man of sin in the place of God, showing himself that he is God, to supplant the Sabbath of the Lord as the sign of the true and divine Theocracy in which God Himself is God alone. It is not of Caesar: for, as the evidence shows, it was not as Caesar--the head of the State, but solely as pontifex maximus--the head of religion, that Constantine decreed Sunday to be a sacred day and established its observance: and this under the inspiration and demand of "the Church" which is neither God nor Caesar. Therefore, since it is from neither God nor Caesar, but only from "the church" through a heathen "head of religion," there is no obligation, no ground, and no room, for anybody in the universe ever to render to anybody any observance of it in any way whatever.
By every count in the indictment then, it is demonstrated that the original, native, and inherent character of Sunday legislation abides ever the same--exclusively and specifically religious and ecclesiastical. And the ulterior purpose in Sunday legislation is likewise ever the same. We have seen that in the original Sunday legislation the ulterior purpose was "the formation of a sacerdotal State, subordinating the secular to itself in a false and outward way", and the making effective of "the determination" of the ecclesiastics "to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims." And that is precisely the ulterior purpose of it now. Congress and legislatures are constantly besieged; legislators are persistently pestered, and even threatened, by ecclesiastics now, as the imperial office was then, always for Sunday legislation, and more Sunday legislation. It matters not how much of such legislation there may be already on the statute books, still the persistent demand is that there shall be more, and more, and yet more; and it is all dictated, when it is not actually framed, by the interested ecclesiastics themselves, and in terms more and more approaching the Inquisition, precisely as by those other ecclesiastics at the first. We need not follow the subject further here. The evidences here presented show conclusively that the character of Sunday legislation is ever only exclusively and specifically religious and ecclesiastical; that, therefore, in the United States it is unconstitutional and un-American; and that everywhere it is un-Godly and anti-Christian.
|