In Dr. Herrick Johnson’s address before the American Sabbath Union, on the Sunday newspaper, as published in the March Monthly Document of that association, there are four propositions laid down concerning the Sunday newspaper, the last of which we shall give special notice. Quoting from an Illinois Supreme Court Report, he says:—AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.1

“Every individual has the right to the enjoyment of the Christian Sabbath without liability to annoyance from the ordinary secular pursuits of life, except so far as they may be dictated by necessity or charity.”AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.2

This proposition is self-evident, and needs no discussion. No one would uphold it more strenuously than would the editors of the AMERICAN SENTINEL. But there are some questions that we would like to ask, to find out the idea of the Sunday-law advocates upon the subject of human rights. Suppose a man does not wish to exercise his right to rest on the first day of the week; what then? Must he be forced to exercise it? Will he be compelled to rest, whether he wishes to or not? If he is to be, then it is demonstrated that the law does not contemplate the protection of Sunday observance as a man’s right, but the enforcement of it as a duty. Governments are organized for the protection of people’s rights, not for the purpose of compelling them to exercise their rights, for it is considered self-evident, as a law of nature, that no man will need to be compelled to assert his own rights.AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.3

Another point that should not be passed lightly by is this: How extensive an idea of human right have these Sunday-law advocates? Do they mean to imply that every man has a right to the enjoyment of a Sabbath rest whenever he chooses to take it, and on whatever day he chooses to rest? or do they mean to limit that right to a certain day? Do they mean that every man has a right to be protected in the enjoyment of rest only on Sunday? This we should infer from the proposition, which plainly implies that a person has no right to the undisturbed enjoyment of rest on any other day. If they say that a man has a right to the undisturbed enjoyment of rest on the seventh day of the week, then they deprive themselves of all argument for a Sunday law; and if they say that a man has not a right to rest upon Saturday, they thereby confess that their proposed law is a law against the rights of conscience; for it is well known that those people do conscientiously rest upon the seventh day. This is just what they mean.AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.4

That their movement for a National Sunday law is a movement to the effect that no one has any rights except those who keep Sunday, is evident from the following. It has been quoted many times before in the SENTINEL, and it doubtless will be quoted many times again, unless National Reform Sunday-law advocates specifically repudiate it. It is from Dr. Edwards’ speech at the New York National Reform Convention. He says:—AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.5

“What are the rights of the atheist? I would tolerate him as I would a poor lunatic, for in my view he is scarcely sound. So long as he does not rave, so long as he is not dangerous, I would tolerate him. I would tolerate him as I would a conspirator.”AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.6

And later he exclaims, “Tolerate atheism, sir? there is nothing out of hell that I would not tolerate as soon.”AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.7

And what is Dr. Edwards’ idea of an atheist? Following is his own statement, in the save lecture:—AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.8

“The atheist is a man who denies the being of a God and a future life. To him mind and matter are the same, and time is the be-all and the end-all of consciousness and of character.AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.9

“The deist admits God, but denies that he has any such personal control over human affairs as we call providence, or that he manifests himself and his will in a revelation.AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.10

“The Jew admits God, providence, and revelation, but rejects the entire scheme of gospel redemption by Jesus Christ as sheer imagination, or-worse-sheer imposture.AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.11

“The seventh-day Baptists believe in God and Christianity, and are conjoined with the other members of this class by the accident of differing with the mass of Christians upon the question of what precise day of the week shall be observed as holy.AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.12

“These all are, for the occasion, and so far as our amendment is concerned, one class. They use the same arguments and the same tactics against us. They must be counted together, which we very much regret, but which we cannot help. The first-named is the leader in the discontent and in the outcry,—the atheist, to whom nothing is higher or more sacred than man, and nothing survives the tomb. It is his class. Its labors are almost wholly in his interest; its success would be almost wholly his triumph. The rest are adjuncts to him in this contest. They must be named from him; they must be treated as, for this question, one party.”AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.13

That is, the man who differs with the majority as to the exact day to be observed, the man who conscientiously observes the seventh day, because the Bible says so, instead of the first, concerning which the Bible says nothing, is classed as an atheist; and it is plainly declared that an atheist is not to be tolerated, except as a lunatic would be tolerated. A lunatic is allowed to run at large so long as he is quiet; but as soon as his mania takes an aggressive form, he is shut up. Dr. Edwards regards the keeping of the seventh day as evidence of an unsound mind. So long as the individual should say nothing about it, he might perhaps be considered a harmless lunatic; but whenever the observer of the seventh day should begin to promulgate his faith, and openly teach others that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and persuade them to accept it, he would be raving, and, therefore, would be shut up and treated as a conspirator.AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.14

In the Christian Statesman of July 7, 1887, it is positively denied that atheists, among whom it will be remembered Christians who keep the seventh day are classed, have “any reasonable claim to conscientious convictions, and privileges at all.” Thus it is plainly seen that the success of this National Sunday-law movement means the depriving of a large number of the citizens of the United States of the rights of conscience.AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.15

Let it be understood that whatever right any man has is bestowed upon him by God himself. Human rights are not bestowed by civil government. All that civil governments are instituted for is to protect men in the enjoyment of rights which God has given them. The Declaration of Independence, which has justly been called the charter of American liberties, declares that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This means that every individual is equal, with respect to the rights with which God has endowed him. Now, while we have heard National Reformers and the president of the American Sabbath Union rail against the Constitution, we have never yet heard an American, or any other person, for that matter, find fault with the Declaration of Independence. That document voiced a truth as sure as any statement of holy writ. God has given to every man the same right; if ninety-nine per cent. of the people in any country have a certain right, the other one per cent. have the same right. But the American Sabbath Union is organized for the express purpose of protecting one class in the enjoyment of certain rights, and the depriving of another class of the same rights. In other words, it is organized for the express purpose of overthrowing the work done by the founders of this government. It is distinctively un-American. Nothing is surer than that its work is the exact opposite of the work of the immortal framers of the Declaration of Independence; and therefore since their work was to secure to this land perfect liberty, its work has for its sole object the overthrow of American liberty. It seems as though this demonstration must be clear to every individual.AMS October 30, 1889, page 313.16

It will be said that those who are thus discriminated against and deprived of equal rights with others are only a few. Thus Dr. Edwards, in the same speech from which we have quoted, said:—AMS October 30, 1889, page 314.1

“The parties whose conscience we are thus charged with troubling, taken altogether, are but few in number. This determines nothing as to who is right, but the fact remains, and is worthy of note, that, taken altogether, they amount to but a small fraction of our citizenship. They are not even as many as those among us who do not speak the English language.”AMS October 30, 1889, page 314.2

Mr. Crafts, in his speech before the Senate Committee, spoke of “the one or two small sects of Christians who worship on Saturday.” And after speaking of the difficulties that rise in exempting them from the penalties of the Sunday law, contemptuously dismisses them in the following words:—AMS October 30, 1889, page 314.3

“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 wages rather than have the other ninety-nine suffer by the wrecking of the Sabbath by public business.”AMS October 30, 1889, page 314.4

Many times have we heard Sunday-law lecturers pass the consideration of the fact that their law would cause seventh-day observers to suffer, with the statement that such people constitute only about seven-tenths of one per cent. of the population, and that therefore they were too insignificant to be noticed. Perhaps they may think so; but such expressions show that they do not understand what they are doing. It is not a question of whether a few people who observe Saturday will be injured or not, but whether the government can afford to adopt the principle that minorities have no rights. If that principle is adopted, it will not be limited in its application to observers of the seventh day. It may seem very fine for the majority on any question of opinion to decide that those who differ with them have no rights; but they should remember that majorities sometimes change. This question of Sunday law will determine whether a man’s life or property is safe in this country. If the government lends itself to a scheme which will be unjust to a single individual, then nobody has any assurance that injustice will not be done him. If the rights of a few people may be trampled upon because they keep the seventh day, the rights of some other people may be trampled upon because they differ with the majority on some other question. If in this country the principle of trampling upon human rights is once adopted, nobody can tell where it will stop. We are not alarmists, but we have no hesitation in saying that if the government follows the course marked out for it by the American Sabbath Union, the scenes of the French Revolution will be re-enacted in this country. It cannot be otherwise.AMS October 30, 1889, page 314.5

E. J. W.

“How is This?” American Sentinel 4, 40.

E. J. Waggoner

On Tuesday evening, October 1, the Prohibitionists of Nashville, Tenn., met in convention to nominate a city ticket, and adopted resolutions, a part of which are as follows:—AMS October 30, 1889, page 315.1

WHEREAS, We, Prohibitionists of the city of Nashville, in convention assembled, have unshaken confidence in the wisdom of that action by which a political party has been organized for the accomplishment of an object more important than any other offered to our consideration as a free people, to wit, the prohibition of the beverage liquor traffic by State and national law, as the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors are the constant and fruitful source of physical, intellectual, and moral unsoundness, producing degradation and crime, robbing women and children, and in ways manifold and extreme perverting the blessings of free institutions,AMS October 30, 1889, page 315.2

Resolved, That the prohibition of the liquor traffic should be the dominating and dividing political issue until such prohibition shall have become the recognized and settled policy of the government.AMS October 30, 1889, page 315.3

Resolved, That the policy of prohibition, because of the scope of its economic and social relations, and the largeness of its connection with civil liberty, should be embodied in the organic law of the States and the United States, as a safeguard of enlarged social life, which is the basis of all stable and prosperous government.AMS October 30, 1889, page 315.4

Resolved, That the American Sunday, in the interest of public order and morality, should be zealously guarded, and we hereby arraign and condemn the municipal authorities of the city of Nashville for the non-enforcement of law against Sunday tippling.AMS October 30, 1889, page 315.5

Resolved, That as Prohibitionists we heartily indorse and support the recent protest of citizens of Nashville against Sunday tippling, and proffer cordial co-operation with them in their patriotic and lawful efforts to enforce the law against its violators, and in the enforcement of all other laws.AMS October 30, 1889, page 315.6

Our third-party friends who think that if we would demonstrate our temperance principles we should by all means support the Prohibition ticket, seek to allay our fears by saying that the Prohibition party has nothing to do with Sunday laws. We would like to have them explain this resolution, and tell us whether or not the Prohibitionists of Nashville are in harmony with the party at large.AMS October 30, 1889, page 316.1

We cannot understand how the mention of Sunday in the connection that it comes in these resolutions, has anything to do with temperance. The first resolution says that the sale of intoxicating liquors is the “source of physical, intellectual, and moral unsoundness;” that it produces degradation and crime; and therefore they believe in prohibiting it. Very good; but if they do actually believe in prohibiting it, why do they need to specify their protest against Sunday tippling, and their determination to enforce the prohibition of liquor on Sunday? If they are really Prohibitionists, as we have always understood the term, that would include the stopping of the sale of liquor on Sunday as well as on all other days. But if their movement involves something less than the complete suppression of the liquor traffic,—if, as their reference to Sunday implies, they will be at least in a measure content with the suppression of the sale of liquor on Sunday,—how can they harmonize that with the terrible arraignment of the liquor traffic in the first resolution? It seems to us that there is insincerity somewhere, or else a compounding of crime. Will some third-party friend inform us why it is necessary to specify Sunday tippling in resolutions declaiming against any sale whatever of liquor?AMS October 30, 1889, page 316.2

E. J. W.

October 16, 1889

November 6, 1889