“A BILL

“TO PREVENT PERSONS FROM BEING FORCED TO LABOR ON SUNDAY.TTR 843.2

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That it shall be unlawful for any person or corporation, or employee of any person or corporation in the District of Columbia, to perform any secular labor or business, or to cause the same to be performed by any person in their employment on Sunday, except works of necessity or mercy; nor shall it be lawful for any person or corporation to receive pay for labor or services performed or rendered in violation of this act.TTR 843.3

“Any person or corporation, or employee of any person or corporation in the District of Columbia, who shall violate the provisions of this act shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by fine of not more than one hundred dollars for every offense: Provided, however, That the pro visions of this act shall not be constructed to apply to any person or persons who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day of the week than Sunday as a day of rest.”TTR 843.4

It is seen that this bears the same marks as the revised Blair bill The title says one thing and the body of the bill another The title proposes to prevent persons from being forced to labor on Sunday, while the body of the bill prohibits all persons form working even voluntarily on Sunday. Besides this, even though it were true that there are persons in the District of Columbia who are being forced to labor on Sunday or at any other time, there is an ample remedy already supplied. Article XIII of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, declares that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction,” Now the District of Columbia is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United States; therefore if there is any forced labor or involuntary service anywhere in the District of Columbia, on Sunday or any other day all that is necessary for any to do who are so oppressed is to present their plea, under this article, to the United States Court and the whole power of the United States government will be exerted, if necessary, to release them from their bondage.TTR 844.1

No Sunday law, therefore, is needed to prevent persons from being forced to labor on Sunday or at any other time, either in the District of Columbia or anywhere else in the United States, Nor is this the real intent of this bill. The body of the bill in forbidding any “secular labor or business and in requiring the “conscientious belief in and observance of another day by those who do not keep Sunday does distinctly pledge the legislation to the religious character of the day and to the jurisdiction of the conscientious beliefs and observances of the people. it is evident, therefore that with this bill as with the revised Blair bill, the title that it bears is intentionally misleading and is only for the sake of appearances and policy.TTR 844.2

The exemption clause inserted in this bill as also in Section 6 of the revised Blair bill is of the same character—its sole purpose is to ward off the opposition of the observers of the seventh day, until the government shall have been committed to the legislation. This we know, and this they know; and with this item there is a bit of history that is worth relating, not only for the sake of the facts, but of the principles involved.TTR 845.1

At the hearing before the Senate Committee on the Sunday bill, Mrs. Bateham mentioned “the Seventh-day Baptists” as “a class not large in numbers,” and requested that “the conscientious scruples of this class be respected” by “the following addition to the bill:”TTR 845.2

“Section 7 Any person that has habitually and conscientiously refrained from all labor on Saturday believing that to be the Sabbath, shall; on proof thereof be exempt from the penalties of this law provided he has not on Sunday interfered with the rights of others to a day for rest and worship.”TTR 845.3

A. H. Lewis, D. D., who was present as the representative of the Seventh-day Baptists, also asked that a section be added exempting observers of the seventh day. But there was present a representative of the Seventh-day Adventists who objected to the whole matter, exemption and all. From the report of the hearing (pages 96, 97), we copy the following upon the point:TTR 845.4

The Chairman (Senator Blair).—“You object to it? “TTR 845.5

Mr. Jones.—“We object to the whole principle of the proposed legislation. We go to the root of the matter and deny the right of Congress to enact it.”TTR 845.6

The Chairman.—“Your say that the proposed exemption does not make it any better?”TTR 845.7

Mr. Jones.—“Not a bit. because if the legislation be admitted, then we admit that it is the right of a majority to say that such and such a day shall be the Sabbath or the Lord’s day, and that it shall be kept. The majorities change in civil government. The majority may change within a few years, and then the people may say that the day we believe shall be kept must be observed, or they may say that this day shall not be kept. If we admit the propriety of the legislation, we also admit the propriety of legislation to the effect that a certain day shall not be kept, and it makes every man’s observance of Sunday or otherwise simply the foot-ball of majorities.”TTR 845.8

The Chairman.—“Do you not think there is a distinction between the majority in a monarchical government and a republican government? In a monarchical government the majority is simply one man who has power.”TTR 846.1

Mr. Jones.—“But in a republic, when you throw this legislation into civil affairs it makes a great deal of difference. There is another principle involved. If we admit the exemption clause, it will not help the thing. It will be exceedingly short. Suppose an exemption clause were given There are people who will profess to be Seventh-day Adventists for express purpose of getting chances to open saloons or houses of business on Sunday. Therefore in outright self-defense, majority will have to repeal the exemption clause.”TTR 846.2

The Chairman.—Call Mrs. Bateham’s attention to that.”TTR 846.3

Mr. Jones.—“Let me repeat it. If you give an exemption clause,—it has been tried,—there are reprehensible men, saloon keepers, who know they will get more traffic on Sunday than they can on Saturday, and they will profess to be Seventh-day Adventists; they will profess to be Sabbath-keepers. You cannot “go behind the returns”—you cannot look into the heart, you cannot investigate the intention—to see whether they are genuine in their profession or not. They will profess to be Sabbath keepers, and then they will open their saloons on Sunday. Then in outrightTTR 846.4

self-defense, to make your position effective, you will have to repeal that exemption clause. It will last but a little while.”TTR 847.1

The Chairman,—“I agree with you there.” ^{16[Page 858] See pages 321, 322 of this book.}TTR 847.2

Mr. Jones.—“For that reason these people cannot afford to offer an exemption clause, and for the reason that it puts the majority in the power of our conscience, we deny the right to do anything of the kind. I ask the organizations represented here to think of that.”TTR 847.3

The Chairman.—“I should like to call everybody’s attention to the point. If you need any legislation of this kind, you had better ask for legislation to carry out your purposes, and be careful that in the effort to get the assistance of the parties against you, you do not throw away the pith and substance of all for which you ask.”TTR 847.4

To these same people, with others, Mrs. Bateham had already, in 1887, Addressed a printed “Letter to Seventh day Believers.” proposing, in substance, that if they would help in securing a Sunday law, they should be exempt from its penalties. They replied “We will not help you to put upon others what we would not have put upon ourselves.TTR 847.5

During the year 1889, Mr. Crafts made a tour of the whole country from the Atlantic to the Pacific in the interests of Sunday legislation working up “representative indorsements” of the following petition:TTR 848.1

“To the United States Senate: [Duplicate to the House]—TTR 848.2

“The undersigned organizations and adult residents of the United States twenty one years of age or more hereby earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill forbidding in the nation’s mail and military service and in interstate commerce and in the District of Columbia and the Territories all Sunday traffic and work except works of religion and works of real necessity and mercy and such private work by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week by abstaining from labor and business as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.TTR 848.3

Everywhere that Mr. Crafts went, he denounced the Seventh day Adventists as the chief opponents of the Sunday-law movement. Not only did he do this from the platform, but through the press. For instance, in Our Day. the Boston magazine edited by Joseph Cook. for July, 1889, he reported as follows:—TTR 848.4

“Every where are seen the footprints of the little but lively denomination of Seventh day Adventists, who are outdoing not only the Seventh day Baptists, but even Hebrews infidels, and liquor dealers in battling against Sunday law as if it were the worst of vices. They put beautiful tract holders into depots filled with their literature, which they also distribute from door to door with a generosity and industry that shame by contrast the meager gifts and efforts of the friends of the American Sabbath.”TTR 848.5

Yet these very ones, the very ones who are doing the most against Sunday laws and Sunday observance, are the ones who are to be exempt from the provisions and penalties of the law-enforcing. Sunday observance ! That is the government is asked to set itself by exempting from the requirements of its laws the ones who are most opposed to the laws! For if it should be done in this case, why not in every case? and then what are laws worth and what becomes of government? If a law be just, there can be no just exemption. If the law is right, exemption is wrong. And if exemption is right, then the law is wrong. Therefore their offer and advocacy of exemption, is an open confession that the law is unjust, and that under the law without the exemption, the people would be denied the equal protection of the laws. Yet though this be true, the exemption is neither offered nor advocated upon principle, but solely for policy’s sake. Of this there is the clearest proof.TTR 848.6

The Breckinridge bill was referred to the House Committee on District of Columbia. February 18, 1890, this committee held a hearing upon the bill. At that hearing, a representative of the Seventh day Adventists spoke upon this particular feature of the bill; and the argument sets forth this matter so plainly that it is given here in full.TTR 849.1

Mr. Jones—‘MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE: I shall devote most of my remarks to the subject which was made so much of by the gentleman who spoke last on the other side [Mr. Crafts]; namely, the Seventh day Adventists and their opposition to this legislation.... Congress can make no law upon the subject of religion without interfering with the free exercise thereof. There fore the Seventh-day Adventists, while observing Saturday, would most strenuously oppose any legislation proposing to enforce the observance of that day. That would be an interference with the free exercise of our right to keep that day as the Sabbath. For we already have that right’—TTR 849.2

The Chairman.—“Would this law take away your right to observe the Sabbath? “TTR 849.3

Mr. Jones.—“Yes sir I was about to prove that it does interfere with the free exercise of our right to observe it; and having done that, I will prove that this bill does dis (contemplate the taking away of the right to observe it.TTR 849.4

“First as to its interference with the free exercise of our right to observe the Sabbath. I take it that no one here will deny that now, at least, we, as citizens of the United States, have the constitutional right to observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or not to observe it, as we please. This right we already have as citizens of the United States. As we already have it by the constitution, their proposal to give it to us is only a concealed attempt to deprive us of it altogether. For if we consent to their right or their power to grant it, the power to grant carries with it the power to withhold. In consenting to the one, we consent to the other. And as the granting of it is, as I shall prove, for a purpose, and for a price, the withdrawing of it will surely follow just as soon as the purpose of it is accomplished, and especially if the price of it is not fully and promptly paid.TTR 850.1

“Now this bill positively requires that whosoever does not observe Sunday shall “conscientiously believe in and observe’ another day of the week. We do not keep Sunday. The bill does, therefore, distinctly require that we shall conscientiously believe in and observe another day. We maintain that we have the constitutional right to rest on Saturday, or any other day, whether we do it conscientiously or not, or whether we conscientiously believe in it or not. Haven’t we? Congress has no constitutional power or right to require anybody to ‘conscientiously believe in anything or to conscientiously observe’ anything.TTR 850.2

“But when it is required, as is proposed in this bill, who is to decide whether we conscientiously believe in it or not? Who is to decide whether the observance is conscientious or not? That has already been declared in those State Sunday laws and decisions which have been referred to here to-day as examples for you to follow. It is that the burden of proof rests upon him who makes the claim of conscience, and the proof must be such as will satisfy the court. Thus this bill does propose to subject to the control of courts and juries our conscientious convictions, our conscientious beliefs, and our conscientious observances. Under this law, therefore, we would no longer be free to keep the Sabbath according to the dictates of our own consciences, but could keep it only according to the dictates of the courts. Gentlemen, it is not enough to say that would be an interference with the free exercise of our right to keep the Sabbath; it would be an absolute subversion of our right so to do.TTR 850.3

“Nor is it for ourselves only that we plead. We are not the only ones who will be affected by this law. It is not our rights of conscience only that will be subverted, but the rights of conscience of everybody, of those who keep Sunday as well as those who keep Saturday, of those who are in favor of the law as well as those of us who oppose the law. When the law requires that those who do not observe Sunday shall conscientiously believe in and observe another day, by that it is conclusively shown that it is the conscientious belief in, and observance of, Sunday itself that is required and enforced by this law. That is, the law requires that everybody shall conscientiously believe in and observe some day. But every man has the constitutional right to conscientiously believe in and observe a day or not as he pleases. He has just as much right not to do it as he has to do it. And the legislature invades the freedom of religious worship when it assumes the power to compel a man conscientiously or religiously to do that which he has the right to omit if he pleases. The principle is the same whether the act compels us to do that which we wish to do, or whether it compels us to do that which we do not wish to do. The compulsory power does not exist in either case. In either case the State control of the rights of conscience; and the freedom of every man to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience is gone, and thenceforth all are required to worship according to the dictates of the State.TTR 851.1

“Therefore in opposing this bill, and all similar measures, we are advocating the rights of conscience of all the people. We are not only pleading for our own right to keep the Sabbath according to the dictates of our own consciences, but we are also pleading for their right to keep Sunday according to the dictates of their own consciences. We are not only pleading that we, but that they also, in conscientious beliefs and observances, may be free from the interference and dictation of the State. And in so pleading we are only asserting doctrine of the national Constitution. In the history of the formation of the Constitution, Mr. Bancroft says that the American constitution ‘withheld from the Federal government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanctuary of the soul.’ Let the American Constitution be respected.TTR 851.2

“Now to the point that this bill through its promoters, does distinctly contemplate the taking away of the right to observe the Sabbath. I read from the bill the exemption that is proposed;—TTR 852.1

... This act shall not be construed to apply to any person or persons who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day of the week than Sunday as a day of rest.TTR 852.2

“Now why is that clause put in the bill? The intention of the law maker is the law. If, therefore, we can find out why this was inserted, we can know what the object of it is. During the past year Mr. Crafts has advertised all over this country from Boston to San Francisco, and back again, and has repeated it to this committee this morning, that the Seventh-day Adventists and the Seventh day Baptists are the strongest opponents of Sunday laws that there are in this country, and that they are doing more than all others combined to destroy respect for Sunday observance. All this; and yet these are the very persons whom he proposes to exempt from the provisions of the law, which is expressly to secure the observance of Sunday!TTR 852.3

“Why, then does he propose to exempt these? Is it out of respect for them, or a desire to help them in their good work?—Not much. It is hoped by this to check their opposition until Congress is committed to the legislation.TTR 852.4

“How do we know this?—We know it by their own words. The lady who spoke here this morning as the representative of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Mrs. Catlin, said in this city; We have given them an exemption clause, and that, we think, will take the wind out of their sails!’ Well, if our sails were dependent upon legislative enactments, and must needs be trimmed to political breezes, such a squall as this might take the wind out of them. But so long as they are dependent alone upon the power of God, wafted by the gentle influences of grace of Jesus Christ, such squalls become only prospering gales to speed us on our way.TTR 853.1

“By this, gentlemen, you see just what is the object of that proposed exemption—that it is only to check our opposition until they secure the enactment of the law, and that they may do this the easier. Then when Congress shall have been committed to the legislation, it can repeal the exemption upon demand, and then the advocates of the Sunday law will have exactly what they want. I am not talking at random here. I have the proofs of what I am saying. They expect a return for this exemption. It is not extended as a guaranteed right, but as a favor that we can have if we will only pay them their own stated price for it. As a proof of this, I read again from Mr. Crafts’s book [‘The Sabbath For Man’], page 262:—TTR 853.2

“‘The tendency of legislatures and executive officers towards those who claim to keep a Saturday Sabbath, is to over leniency rather than to over strictness.TTR 853.3

“And in the convention held in this city only about three weeks ago, January 30, Mr. Crafts said that this exemption is ‘generous to a fault,’ and that ‘if there is any fault in the bill, it is its being too generous’ to the Seventh day Adventists and the Seventh day Baptists. But I read on:—TTR 853.4

‘For instance, the laws of Rhode Island allow the Seventh day Baptists, by special exceptions, to carry on public industries on the first day of the week in Hopkinton and Westerly, in each of which places they form about one fourth of the population. This local option method of Sabbath legislation after the fashion of Rhode Island or Louisiana, if generally adopted, would make not only each Stat, but the nation also, a town heap, some places having two half Sabbaths as at Westerly, some having no Sabbath at all, as at new Orleans, to the great confusion and injury of interstate commerce and even of local industry. Infinitely less harm is done by the usual policy, the only constitutional or sensible one, to let the insignificantly small minority of less than one in a hundred, whose religious convictions require them to rest on Saturday (unless their work is of a private character such as the law allows them to do on Sunday) suffer the loss of one day’s was rather than have other ninety nine suffer by the wreaking of their Sabbath by public business.’TTR 854.1

“Why, then, do they offer this ‘special exception’? Why do they voluntarily do that which they themselves pronounce neither constitutional nor sensible?—It is for a purpose.TTR 854.2

“Again I read, and here is the point to which I wish especially to call the attention of the committee. It shows what they intend we shall pay for the exemption which they so ‘over generously’ offer.TTR 854.3

“Instead of reciprocating the generosity shown toward them buy the makers of Sabbath laws these seventh day Christians expend very large part of their energy in antagonizing such laws, seeking by the free distribution of tracts and papers, to secure their repeal or neglect.”TTR 854.4

“Exactly! That is the price which we are expected to pay for this “generous’ exemption. We are to stop the distribution of tracts and papers which antagonize Sunday laws. We are to stop spending our energy in opposition to their efforts to promote Sunday observance. We are to stop telling the people that the Bible says “the seventh-day is the Sabbath,’ and that Sunday is not the Sabbath.TTR 854.5

“But have we not the right to teach the people that ‘the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord,’ even as the Bible says, and that only the keeping of that day is the keeping of the Sabbath according to the commandment? Have we not the right to do this Have we the not the right to tell the people there is no scriptural authority for keeping Sunday, the first day of the week? Why, some of these gentlemen themselves say that. Mr. Elliott here [Rev. George] confesses ‘the complete silence of the New Testament, so far as any explicit command for the Sabbath, or definite rules for its observance are concerned.’ Many others speak to the same effect. Have we not as much right to tell this to the people as they have? They do not agree among themselves upon the obligations of Sabbath keeping, nor upon the basis of Sunday laws. In every one of their conventions one speaks one way and another in another and contradictory way. Have we not as much right to disagree with them as they have to disagree with one another? Why is it, then, that they want to stop our speaking these things,—unless it is that we tell the truth?TTR 854.6

“More than this: have we not the constitutional right freely to speak all this, and also freely to distribute tracts and papers in opposition to Sunday laws and Sunday sacredness? Does not the Constitution declare that ‘the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ shall not be abridged? then when these men propose that we shall render much a return for that exemption, they do propose an invasion of the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech and of the press. Why, gentlemen, this question of Sunday laws is a good deal larger question than half the people ever dreamed of.TTR 855.1

“Now to show you that I am not drawing this point too fine, I wish to read another extract from a doctor of divinity in California. With reference to this specific question, he said:—TTR 855.2

“‘Most of the States make provision for the exercise of the peculiar tenets of belief which are entertained by the Adventists. They can worship on Saturday. and call it the Sabbath if they choose; but there let their privileges end.’TTR 855.3

“They do, indeed seem by this to be generous enough to allow those of us who are already keeping Sabbath to continue to do so while we live; but there our privileges are to end. We are not to be allowed to speak or distribute papers or tracts to teach anybody else to keep it. Why, gentlemen of the committee, do you not see that they propose by this law to deprive us of all our rights both of conscience and of the Constitution? Therefore we come to you to plead for protection. We do not ask you to protect us by legislation. We do not ask you to legislate in favor of Saturday—not even to the extent of an exemption clause. We ask you to protect us by refusing to give to these men their coveted power to invade our rights. We appeal to you for protection in our constitutional rights as well as our rights of conscience.TTR 856.1

“‘There let their privileges end.’ If. Even this allowance is only conditional. And the condition is the same precisely as that laid by Mr. Crafts; namely, that we shall stop every phase of opposition to Sunday observance. Here it is in his own words, not spoken in the heat and hurry of debate, but deliberately written and printed in an editorial in Western Christian Union, March 22, 1889:—TTR 856.2

“‘Instead of thankfully making use of concessions granted them and then going off quietly and attending to their own business as they ought, they start out making unholy alliances. that they may defeat the purposes of their benefactors. None of these bills are aimed at them; but if they fail to appreciate the fact, they may call down upon them selves such a measure of public disfavor as that legislation embarrassing to them may result.’TTR 856.3

“There, gentlemen, you have the story of that proposed exemption. 1. It is inserted to take the wind out of our sails, and stop our opposition to their efforts and to Sunday observance in general. 2. If we do not ‘appreciate’ the benefaction, and ‘reciprocate the generosity’ by stopping all opposition to their work and to Sunday observance, then legislation ‘embarrassing’ to us may be expected to result.TTR 856.4

“Gentlemen, do you wonder that we do not appreciate such benevolence, or reciprocate such generosity? Can you blame American Citizens for saying in reply to all that, that however ‘embarrassing’ the result may be, we do not appreciate such benevolence, nor do we intend to reciprocate such generosity as that, in such way as is there proposed?TTR 857.1

“There is one more word on this point that I desire to read. It sums up the whole matter in such a way as to be a fitting climax to this division of my remarks. This is from “Rev.’ M. A. Gault, a district secretary of the American Sabbath Union. Mr. Crafts, who is the American Sabbath Union, personally appointed him secretary of Omaha District. Mr. Gault wrote this to Elder J. S. Washburn, of Hawleyville, Iowa, and Mr. Washburn sent it to me. I read:—TTR 857.2

“‘I see most of your literature in my travels [that is the literature that Mr. Crafts says we do not stop distributing, and which we are not going to stop distributing], and I am convinced that your folks will die hard. But we are helping Brother Crafts all the time to set the stakes, and get the ropes ready to scoop you all in You will kick hard, of course. but we will make sure work.TTR 857.3

“Yes, this bill is one of the ‘stakes,’ and the exemption clause is one of the ‘ropes’ by means of which they propose to rope us in. And Mr. Gault is one of the clerical gentlemen who demand that the government shall ‘set up the moral law and recognize God’s authority behind it, and then lay its hand on any religion that does not conform to it.’TTR 857.4

“This is the intent of those who are working for this bill. You heard Mr. Crafts say a few minutes ago that the Senate Sunday bill introduced by Senator Blair ‘includes this;’ and the Senate bill includes everybody within the jurisdiction of Congress. They trump up this District bill with the hope of getting Congress committed to the legislation with less difficulty than by the national bill, because the attention of the people is not so much turned to it. Then having by the District bill got Congress committed to such legislation, they intend to rally every influence to secure the passage of the national bill; and then they propose to go on in their ‘roping in career until they shall have turned this nation into a government of God, with themselves as the repositories of his will.’TTR 857.5

Mr. Heard.—“Is there any reference to that letter in that book from which you have been reading?’TTR 858.1

Mr. Jones.—“No, sir. I pasted it on the margin of this book, merely for convenience of reference along with the ‘generous’ proposition of his ‘Brother Crafts.’TTR 858.2

“All this shows that the intent of the makers and promoters of this bill is to subvert the constitutional rights of the people. The intent of the law-maker is the law. As, therefore, by their own words, the intent of this exemption clause is to stop all effort to teach or to persuade people to keep the Sabbath instead of Sunday; as the intent of the body of the bill is to compel all to keep Sunday who do not keep the Sabbath; and as the intent of both together is to ‘scoop all in’ and ‘make sure work,’ it follows inevitably, and my proposition is demonstrated, that the promoters of this legislation do distinctly contemplate the taking away of the right to observe the Sabbath in this nation, and to allow the keeping of Sunday only.” ^{17[Page 859] See page 688, par. 2, 3, of this book.}TTR 858.3

And this is but the preliminary step to the crushing out of all freedom of religious thought and action. For, by what right, or upon what authority, do they presume to do this? We have seen that by their own plain statements they confess that there is no command of God for Sunday observance. Yet they propose to compel all in the nation to keep Sunday as an obligation to God. By what right, then, does this great combination demand State and national laws compelling people to observe, as an obligation to God, that for which there is no command of God?TTR 858.4

Where there is no command of God, there is no obligation towards God. In this demand, therefore, they do in fact put themselves in the place of God, and require that their will shall be accepted as the will of God. They require that their views, without any command from the Lord, shall be enforced upon all men; and that all men shall be required to yield obedience thereto as to an obligation enjoined by the Lord.TTR 858.5

Now it is the inalienable right of every man to dissent from any and every church doctrine, and to disregard every church ordinance, institution, or rite. All but papists will admit this. Therefore, whenever the State undertakes to enforce the observance of any church ordinance or institution, and thus makes itself the champion of the Church it simply undertakes to rob men of their inalienable right think and choose for themselves in matters of religion and church order. Men are therefore, and thereby, compelled either to submit to be robbed of their inalienable right of freedom of thought in religious things, or else to disregard the authority of the State. And the man of sound principle and honest conviction will never hesitate as to which of the two things he will do.TTR 859.1

When the State undertakes to enforce the observance of church ordinances or institutions, and thus makes itself the champion and partisan of church, then the inalienable right of men to dissent from church doctrines and to disregard church ordinances or institutions, is extended to the authority of the STATE in so far as it is thus exercised. And that which is true of church doctrines, ordinances, and institutions, is equally true of religious doctrines and exercises of all kinds.TTR 859.2

Now Sunday is, and is acknowledged even by themselves to be, but a church institution only. and when the State enforces Sunday observance, it does compel submission to church authority, and conformity to church discipline; and does thereby invade the inalienable right of dissent from church authority and discipline. if the State can rightfully do this in this one thing, it can do so in all; and therefore in doing this it does in effect destroy all freedom of religious thought and action.TTR 859.3

Yet strictly speaking, it is not their own will nor their own views which they propose to have enforced. Protestants did not create the Sunday institution; they did not originate Sunday observance. Protestantism inherited both the Sunday institution and Sunday observance. The Catholic Church originated Sunday observance. The papacy substituted the Sunday institution for the Sabbath of the Lord, enforced its acceptance and observance upon all, and prohibited under a curse the keeping of the Sabbath of the Lord She did it, and justified herself in it, precisely as these now do. That is, by tradition and “presumptions” and “spontaneous growths from the hearts of believers,” and by what Christ “probably” taught, or intended to teach, or would have taught if the matter had only been brought to his attention.TTR 860.1

There is authority for Sunday observance. It is the authority of the Catholic Church. [Fn17] Therefore, whoever observes Sunday does recognize the authority of the papacy, and does do homage to the Catholic Church. The enactment of Sunday laws does recognize the authority of the Catholic Church; the enforcement of Sunday observance does compel homage and obedience to the papacy. Just what there is in this movement, therefore, is the literal fulfillment of that prophecy in Revelation 13:11-17. It is the making of the image of the papal beast, and the enforcement of THE WORSHIP OF THE BEAST AND HIS IMAGE. ^{18[Page 860] Let us not be misunderstood in this. We do not deny the right of any person to keep Sunday. So far as earthly government, or any authority of mankind is concerned, any person has just as much right to keep Sunday as anybody has to keep the Sabbath. This is their right, and they are responsible to God only, for the exercise of it. What we object to is their assumption of authority, and their demand for laws, to compel anybody to keep it. Nor do we object to their doing this because there is no command of God for it. We would object just as much to their doing it, though there were ten thousand commands of God for it. No authority but that of God can ever of right enforce a command of God. Men are responsible to God alone for their conduct with respect to anything by him.}TTR 860.2