National Sunday Law (1888)
First Prev
of 22
Next Last

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#1 Feb 5, 2013
National Sunday Law- A.T Jones

INTRODUCTION

This pamphlet is a report of an argument made upon the national Sunday bill introduced by Senator Blair in the fiftieth Congress. It is not, however, exactly the argument that was made before the Senate Committee, as there were so many interruptions in the course of my speech that it was impossible to make a connected argument upon a single point. By these questions, etc., my argument was not only forced to take a wider range than was intended when I began to speak, but I was prevented from making the definite argument that I designed to present. I do not speak of these interruptions and counter-arguments by way of complaint, but only to explain why this
pamphlet is issued. Nevertheless it is a fact that while there were eighteen speeches before mine, occupying three hours, in all of which together there were only one hundred and eighty-nine questions and counter-arguments by all the members of the Committee
who were present, I was interrupted by the Chairman alone, one hundred and sixty-nine times in ninety minutes, as may be seen by the official report of the hearing.--

Fiftieth Congress, Second Session, Messages and Documents No.43, pp.73-102.

A national Sunday law is a question of national interest. While it is true that the Sunday-rest bill did not become a law, the legislation having died with the expiration of the fiftieth Congress, it is also true that those who worked for the ntroduction and passage of that bill are now laying plans to have another national Sunday Bill introduced as soon as possible in the fiftyfirst Congress, and will do all in their power to secure its enactment into law. The scope that was given to the subject by
the questions asked of me by the Senate Committee, has opened the way for a somewhat exhaustive treatment of the subject. These questions being raised by United States senators,-- men of national affairs,--show that a wider circulation of this matter is not out of place. The subject is worthy of the careful attention of the whole American people.

The principles of the American Constitution, the proper relationship between religion and the State, the distinction between moral and civil law, the inalienable civil and religious
rights of men,-- these are questions that never should become secondary in the mind of any American citizen.

An eminent American jurist has justly observed that in a government of the people "there is no safety except in an enlightened public opinion, based on individual intelligence." Constitutional provisions against the encroachments of the religious upon the civil power are safeguards only so long as the intelligence of the people shall recognize the truth that no man can allow any legislation in behalf of the religion, or the religious observances, in which he himself believes, without forfeiting his own religious freedom.

In enlarging as I have upon the matter presented in the original hearing, the meaning or intention of any statement has not been changed in the slightest degree. The argument is submitted to the American people with the earnest hope that they will give
thoughtful consideration to the principles involved. The positions taken will bear the severest test of every form of just criticism.

The bill proposed by Senator Blair, and upon which the argument was made, is as
follows:--

tbc

Judged:

24

24

24

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#2 Feb 5, 2013
"50th CONGRESS,} S. 2983. 1st SESSION.}

"In the Senate of the United States, May 21, 1888, Mr. Blair introduced the following bill, which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Education and Labor:--

"A bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord's day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of epresentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no person, or corporation, or the agent, servant, or employee of any person or corporation, shall perform or authorize to be performed any secular work, labor, or business to the disturbance of others, works of necessity, mercy, and humanity excepted; nor shall any person engage in any play, game, or amusement, or
recreation, to the disturbance of others, on the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord's day, or during any part thereof, in any territory, district, vessel, or place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States; nor shall it be lawful for any person or corporation to receive pay for labor or service performed or rendered in violation of this section.

tbc

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#3 Feb 5, 2013
"SEC. 2. That no mails or mail matter shall hereafter be transported in time of peace over any land postal route, nor shall any mail matter be collected, assorted, handled, or delivered during any part of the first day of the week: Provided, That whenever any letter shall relate to a work of necessity or mercy, or shall concern the health, life, or decease of any person, and the fact shall be plainly stated upon the face of the envelope containing the same, the postmaster-general shall provide for the transportation of such letter.

"SEC. 3. That the prosecution of commerce between the States and with the Indian tribes, the same not
being work of necessity, mercy, or humanity, by the transportation of persons or property by land or water in such way as to interfere with or disturb the people in the enjoyment of the first day of the week, or any portion thereof, as a day of rest from labor, the same not being labor of necessity, mercy, or humanity, or its observance as a day of religious worship, is hereby prohibited; and any person or corporation, or the agent or employee of
any person or corporation, who shall willfully violate this section, shall be punished by a
fine of not less than ten nor more than one thousand dollars, and no service performed in
the prosecution of such prohibited commerce shall be lawful, nor shall any compensation be recoverable or be paid for the same.

tbc

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#4 Feb 5, 2013
"SEC. 4. That all military and naval drills, musters, and parades, not in time of active service or immediate preparation therefor, of soldiers, sailors, marines, or cadets of the United States, on the first day of the week, except assemblies for the due and orderly observance of religious worship, are hereby prohibited, nor shall any unnecessary labor be performed or permitted in the military or naval service of the United States on the Lord's day.

"SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful to pay or to receive payment or wages in any manner for service rendered, or for labor performed, or for the transportation of persons or of property in violation of the provisions of this act, nor shall any action lie for the recovery thereof, and when so paid, whether in advance or otherwise, the same may be recovered back by whoever shall first sue for the same.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#5 Feb 5, 2013
"SEC. 6. That labor or service performed and rendered on the first day of the week in consequence of accident, disaster, or unavoidable delays in making the regular connections upon postal routes and routes of travel and transportation, the preservation of perishable and exposed property, and the regular and necessary transportation and delivery of articles of food in condition for healthy use, and such transportation for short distances from one State, district, or Territory, into another State, district, or Territory as by local laws shall be declared to be necessary for the public good, shall not be deemed violations of this act, but the same shall be
construed, so far as possible, to secure to the whole people rest from toil during the first day of the week, their mental and moral culture, and the religious observance of the Sabbath day."

Rev. A. H. Lewis, D. D., representative of the Seventh-day Baptists, had spoken, and asked that a section be added to the bill granting exemption to observers of the Seventh day; but in answering the questions that were asked by the Chairman, Mr.Lewis
compromised his position, and was followed soon after by Dr. Herrick Johnson, of Chicago, who remarked that Dr. Lewis had "given his whole case away." This is what is referred to in my introductory remarks to the effect that we did not intend to "give our case away." A. T. J

tbc

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#6 Feb 5, 2013
ARGUMENT OF ALONZO T. JONES BEFORE THE SENATE
COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Senator Blair.-- There are gentlemen present who wish to be heard in opposition to the bill. Prof. Alonzo T. Jones, of Battle Creek College, Mich., is one of those who have spoken to me in regard to it. Will you not state, Prof. Jones, what your desire is? I have no doubt that we can obtain leave of the Senate to sit during its session to-day. It is
exceedingly desirable to go on with this hearing, and complete it now. How would such an arrangement comport with your convenience? First, state, please, whom you represent, and your reasons for desiring to be heard.

Mr. Jones.--Mr. Chairman, I represent the people known as Seventh-day Adventists. It is true, we have been entirely ignored by the other side. The very small "sect," as they stated it, of Seventh-day Baptists has been recognized, but we are more
than three times their number, and many times their power in the real force of our work. We have organizations in every State and Territory in the Union. We have the largest printing-house in Michigan; the largest printing-house on the Pacific Coast; the largest Sanitarium in the world; a college in California and one in Michigan; an academy in Massachusetts; a printing establishment in Basel, Switzerland; one in Christiana, Norway; and one in Melbourne, Australia. Our mission work has enlarged until, besides embracing the greater part of Europe, it has also extended nearly around the world; and we desire a hearing, with the consent of the Committee.

Senator Blair.--Where do you reside?

Mr. Jones.--At present in Michigan. My home for the past four years has been in California. I am now teaching history in Battle Creek College, Mich.
I must say in justice to myself, and also in behalf of the body which I represent, that we dissent almost wholly, I might say, wholly, from the position taken by the representative of the Seventh-day Baptists. I knew, the instant that Dr. Lewis stated what he did here, that he had "given his case away." We have not given our case away,
Senators, nor do we expect to give it away. We expect to go deeper than any have gone at this hearing, both upon the principles and upon the facts, as well as upon the logic of the facts.

Senator Blair.--This matter is all familiar to you. You are a professor of history. Can you not go on this afternoon?

Mr. Jones.--Yes, if I can have a little space between now and this afternoon to get my papers together. I have some references to read that I did not bring with me this morning.

Senator Blair.-- Very well.

tbc
Robert Two

Adelaide, Australia

#7 Feb 5, 2013
OKAY well done !

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#8 Feb 5, 2013
ARGUMENT.

Senator Blair.--You have a full hour, Professor. It is now half past one.

Mr. Jones.--There are three particular lines in which I wish to conduct the argument: First, the principles upon which we stand; second, the historical view; and, third, the practical aspect of the question. The principle upon which we stand is that civil government is civil, and has nothing to do in the matter of legislation, with religious observances in any way. The asis of this is found in the words of Jesus Christ in Matt. 22:21. When the Pharisees asked whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not, he replied: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

In this the Saviour certainly separated that which pertains to Caesar from that which pertains to God. We are not to render to Caesar that which pertains to God; we are not to render to God by Caesar that which is God's.

Senator Blair.--May not the thing due to Caesar be due to God also?

Mr. Jones.--No, sir. If that be so, then the Saviour did entangle himself in his talk, the very thing which they wanted him to do. The record says that they sought "how they might entangle him in his talk." Having drawn the distinction which he has, between that which belongs to Caesar and that which belongs to God, if it be true that the same
things belong to both, then he did entangle himself in his talk; and where is the force in his words which command us to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to God the things that are God's?

Senator Blair.--Is it not a requirement of God's that we render to Caesar that which is due to Caesar?

Mr. Jones --Yes.

Senator Blair --If Caesar is society, and the Sabbath is required for the good of society, does not God require us to establish the Sabbath for the good of society? and if society makes a law
accordingly, is it not binding?

Mr. Jones.--It is for the good of society that men shall be Christians; but it is not in the province of the State to make Christians. For the State to undertake to do so would not be for the benefit of society; it never has been, and it never can be.

tbc

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#9 Feb 5, 2013
Senator Blair.--Do you not confuse this matter? A thing may be required for the good of society, and for that very reason be in accordance with the will and the command of God. God issues his commands for the good of society, does He not? God does not give
us commands that have no relation to the good of society.

Mr. Jones.--His commands are for the good of man.

Senator Blair.--Man is society. It is made up of individual men.

Mr. Jones.--But in that which God has issued to man for the good of men he has given those things which pertain solely to man's relationship to his God; and he has also given things which pertain to man's relationship to his fellow-men. With those things in which our duty pertains to our fellow-men, civil government can have something to do.

Senator Blair.--Man would obey God in obeying civil society.

Mr. Jones.--I will come to that point. In the things which pertain to our duty to God, with the individual's right of serving God as one's conscience dictates, society has nothing to do; but in the formation of civil society, there are certain rights surrendered to the society by the individual, without which society could not be organized.

Senator Blair.--That is not conceded. When was this doctrine of a compact in society made? It is the philosophy of an infidel.

Mr. Jones. It is made wherever you find men together.

Senator Blair.--Did you and I ever agree to it? Did it bind us before we were compos mentis?

Mr. Jones.--Certainly. Civil government is an ordinance of God.

Senator Blair.--Then it is not necessarily an agreement of man?

Mr. Jones.--Yes, sir, it springs from the people.

Senator Blair.--As to the compact in society that is talked about, it is not conceded that it is a matter of personal and individual agreement. Society exists altogether independent of the volition of those who enter into it. However, I shall not interrupt you further. I only did this because of our private conversation, in which I
thought you labored under a fallacy in your fundamental proposition, that would lead all
the way through your argument. I suggested that ground, and that is all.

Mr. Jones.--I think the statement of the Declaration of Independence is true, that
"Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Senator Blair.--I do not controvert that.

Mr. Jones.--Of all men in the world, Americans ought to be the last to deny the social compact theory of civil government. On board the Mayflower," before the Pilgrim Fathers ever set foot on these shores, the following was written:--

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign, Lord King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, king,
defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends
aforesaid: and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws,
ordinances, acts, constitutions, and officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November, in the reign of our sovereign, Lord King James, of
England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland, the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini, 1620."

The next American record is that of the fundamental orders of Connecticut, 1638-39, and reads as follows:--

tbc

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#10 Feb 5, 2013
"Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of His divine prudence so to order and dispose of things that we, the inhabitants and residents of Windsor, and Harteford, and Wethersfield, are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the river of Conectecotte and the lands thereunto aditioned; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent government established acording to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons, as occation shall require; do therefore assotiate and conioyne ourselves to be as one public State or commonwelth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall aditioned to us at any time hereafter, enter into combination and confederation together," etc.

And, sir, the first Constitution of your own State --1784--in its bill of rights, declares:--

"I. All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good."

"III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender some of their natural rights to that society, in order to insure the protection of others; and without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

"IV. Among the natural rights, some are in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be received for them. Of this kind are the rights of conscience."

And in Part 2, of that same Constitution, under the division of the "form of government," are these words:--

"The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or State, by the name of the State of
New Hampshire."

In the Constitution of New Hampshire of 1792, these articles are repeated word for word. They remain there without alteration in a single letter under the ratification of 1852, and also under the ratification of 1877. Consequently, sir, the very State which sends you to this capitol is founded upon the very theory which you here deny. This is the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence; it is the doctrine of the Scripture; and therefore we hold it to be eternally true.

These sound and genuine American principles--civil governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and the inalienability of the rights of conscience,--these are the principles asserted and maintained by Seventh-day Adventists.

Senator Blair--But society is behind the government which society creates Mr. Jones.--Certainly. All civil government springs from the people, I care not in what form it is.

Senator Blair.--That is all agreed to.

tbc
Robert Two

Adelaide, Australia

#11 Feb 5, 2013
OKAY as a book mark !
Lay Worker

Myrtleford, Australia

#12 Feb 6, 2013
Sky flies by the point

After reviewing the act of Congress, the reports of the committees, etc., and deciding that the law had no such intent as the lower court gave it, the Supreme Court proceeds thus:—{May 31, 1892 ATJ, ARSH 337.10}
But beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people.[Everybody knows that this is not true.] This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.{May 31, 1892 ATJ, ARSH 337.11}
Suppose it be granted that this is "historically true," what kind of religion was this "historical" religion? Was it of a kind that the people of the United States now desire to see perpetuated? We shall presently see what kind it is; and that whatever be the kind, or whether the people desire to see it perpetuated or not, it is perpetuated by this decision.{May 31, 1892 ATJ, ARSH 337.12}
In order to get it before you in the most forcible way, I will first run down to the end of the decision, and show the interpretation and application which the court makes, of the Constitution as it respects religion. After citing "historical" statements which show that the Roman Catholic religion might be the religion of this nation; which establish the righteousness of religious test-oaths as a qualification for office; which require belief in the doctrine of the Trinity—the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, of course—and in the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments; and which establish the righteousness of Sunday laws,—after citing statements which establish the legality of all these religious things, then the court quotes from the First Amendment to the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and upon this, flatly declares:—{May 31, 1892 ATJ, ARSH 337.13}

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and re-affirm that this is a religious nation.{May 31, 1892 ATJ, ARSH 338.1}

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#13 Feb 6, 2013
Of course you missed that part from the introductory post:

"A national Sunday law is a question of national interest. While it is true that the Sunday-rest bill did not become a law, the legislation having died with the expiration of the fiftieth Congress..." A.T. Jones

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#14 Feb 6, 2013
Plus Layworker, in case you did not notice yet this thread is dealing with the attempt in passing a NSL in 1888, not 1892. 1892 was about closing the Chicago Fair on Sundays.

sky

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#15 Feb 6, 2013
I am posting this for the simple reason that the arguments brother Jones presented from the Scriptures to defeat this bill in Congress are the very same arguments the people of God need to know since history will be repeated in the very near future.

sky

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#16 Feb 6, 2013
Mr. Jones.--But the people, I care not how many there are,have no right to invade your relationship to God, nor mine. That rests between the individual and God, through faith in Jesus Christ; and as the Saviour has made this distinction between that which pertains to Caesar and that which is God's, when Caesar exacts of men that which pertains to God, then Caesar is out of his place, and in so far as Caesar is obeyed there, God is denied. When Caesar-- civil government-- exacts of men that which is God's, he demands what does not belong to him; in so doing Caesar usurps the place and the prerogative of God, and every man who regards God or his own rights before God, will disregard all such interference on the part of Caesar.

This argument is confirmed by the apostle's commentary upon Christ's words. In Rom. 13:1-9, is written:--

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the
minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very
thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in
this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

It is easy to see that this scripture is but an exposition of Christ's words, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." In the Saviour's command to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, there is plainly a recognition of the rightfulness of civil government, and that civil government has claims upon us which we are in duty bound to recognize, and that there are things which duty requires us to render to the civil
government. This scripture in Romans 13 simply states the same thing in other words:

tbc

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#17 Feb 6, 2013
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the
powers that be are ordained of God."

Again: the Saviour's words were in answer to a question concerning tribute. They said to him, "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" Rom. 13: 6 refers to the same thing, saying, "For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing." In answer to the question of the Pharisees about the tribute, Christ said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's." Rom. 13:7, taking up the same thought, says, "Render therefore to all their dues:

tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." These references make positive that which we have stated,--that this portion of Scripture (Rom. 13: 1-9) is a divine commentary upon the words of Christ in Matt. 22: 17-21.

The passage refers first to civil government, the higher powers - the powers that be. Next it speaks of rulers, as bearing the sword and attending upon matters of tribute. Then it commands to render tribute to whom tribute is due, and says, "Owe no man any thing; but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Then he
refers to the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments, and says, "It there by any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

There are other commandments of this same law to which Paul refers. There are the four commandments of the first table of the law,--the commandments which say, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me;" "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
image or nay likeness of any thing;" "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;" "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Then there is the other commandment in which are briefly comprehended all these, "Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."

Paul knew full well these commandments. Why, then, did he say, "If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"?--Because he was writing concerning the principles set forth by the Saviour, which relate to our duties to civil government.

tbc

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#18 Feb 6, 2013
Mr. Jones.--Our duties under civil government pertain solely to the government and to our fellowmen, because the powers of civil government pertain solely to men in their relations one o another, and to the government. But the Saviour's words in the same connection entirely separated that which pertains to God from that which pertains to civil government. The things which pertain to God are not to be rendered to civil government--to the powers that be; therefore Paul, although knowing full well that there were other
commandments, said, "If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;" that is, if there be any other commandment which comes into the relation between man and civil government, it is comprehended in this saying, that he shall love his neighbor as himself; thus showing conclusively that the powers that be, though ordained of God, are so ordained simply in things pertaining to the relation of man with his fellow-men, and in those things alone.

Further: as in this divine record of the duties that men over to the powers that be, there is no reference whatever to the first table of the law, it therefore follows that the powers that be, although ordained of God, have nothing whatever to do with the relations which men bear toward God.
As the ten commandments contain the whole duty of man, and as in the enumeration here given of the duties that men owe to the powers that be, there is no mention of any of the things contained in the first table of the law, it follows that none of
the duties enjoined in the first table of the law of God, do men owe to the powers that be; that is to say, again, that the powers that be, although ordained of God, are not ordained of God in anything pertaining to a single duty enjoined in any one of the first four of the ten commandments. These are duties that men owe to God, and with those the powers that be can of right have nothing to do, because Christ has commanded to render unto God -- not to Caesar, nor by Caesar--that which is God's. Therefore, as in his comment upon the principle which Christ established, Paul has left out of the account the first four commandments, so we deny, forever, the right of any civil government to legislate in anything that pertains to men's duty to God under the first four commandments. This Sunday bill does propose to legislate in regard to the Lord's day. If it is the Lord's day, we are to render it to the Lord, not to Caesar. When Caesar exacts it of us, he is exacting what does not belong to him, and is demanding of us that with which he should have nothing to do.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#19 Feb 6, 2013
Senator Blair.--Would it answer your objection in that regard, if, instead of saying "the Lord's day", we should say, "Sunday"?

Mr. Jones - No, sir, Because the underlying principle, the sole basis, of Sunday, is ecclesiastical, and legislation in regard to it is ecclesiastical legislation. I shall come more fully to the question you ask, presently.

Now do not misunderstand us on this point. We are Seventh-day Adventists; but if this bill were in favor of enforcing the observance of the seventh day as the Lord's day, we would oppose it just as much as we oppose it as it is now, for the reason that civil government has nothing to do with what we owe to God, or whether we owe anything or
not, or whether we pay it or not.

Allow me again to refer to the words of Christ to emphasize this point. At that upon the subject of tribute, whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not. In answering the question, Christ established this principle: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

That tribute money was Caesar's; it bore his image and superscription; it was to be rendered to him. Now, it is a question of rendering Sabbath observance, and it is a perfectly legitimate and indeed a necessary question to ask right here: Is it lawful to render Lord's day observance to Caesar? The reply may be in His own words: Show me the Lord's day; whose image and superscription does it bear?--The Lord's, to be sure. This very bill which is under discussion here to-day declares it to be the Lord's day. Then the words of Christ apply to this. Bearing the image and superscription of the Lord, Render therefore to the Lord the things that are the Lord's, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. It does not bear the image and superscription of Caesar; it does not belong to him; it is not to be rendered to
him.

Again: take the institution under the word Sabbath:

Is it lawful to render Sabbath observance to Caesar or not? Show us the Sabbath; whose image and superscription does it bear? The commandment of God says, it "is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." It bears his image and superscription, and his only; it belongs wholly to him; Caesar can have nothing to do with it. It does not belong to Caesar; its observance cannot be rendered to Caesar, but only to God; for the commandment is, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." If it is not kept holy, it is not kept at all. Therefore, belonging to God, bearing his superscription, and not that of Caesar, according to Christ's commandment it is to be rendered only to God; because we are to render to God that which is God's, and the Sabbath is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Sabbath observance, therefore, or Lord's day observance, whichever you may choose to call it, never can be rendered to Caesar.

And Caesar never can demand it without demanding that which belongs to God, or without putting himself in the place of God, and usurping the prerogative of God.

Therefore, we say that if this bill were framed in behalf of the real Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, the day which we observe; if this bill proposed to promote its observance, or to compel men to do no work upon that day we would oppose it just as strongly as we oppose it now, and I would stand here at this table and argue precisely as I
am arguing against this, and upon the same principle,--the principle established by Jesus
Christ,--that with that which is God's the civil government never can of right have anything to do.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#20 Feb 6, 2013
This Sunday bill proposes to have this Government do just that thing, and therefore I say, without any reflection upon the author of the bill, this national Sunday bill which is under discussion here to-day is antichristian. But in saying this I am not singling out this contemplated law as worse than all other Sunday laws in the world. There never was a Sunday law that was not antichristian. and there never can be one that will not be antichristian.

Senator Blair.--You oppose all the Sunday laws of the country, then?

Mr. Jones.--Yes, sir.

Senator Blair.--You are against all Sunday laws?

Mr. Jones.--Yes, sir; we are against every Sunday law that was ever made in this world, from the first enacted by Constantine to this one now proposed; and we would be equally against a Sabbath law if it were proposed, for that would be antichristian, too.

Senator Blair.--State and national, alike?

Mr. Jones.--State and national, sir. I shall give you historical reasons presently, and the facts upon which these things stand, and I hope they will receive consideration.

George Washington, I believe, is yet held in some respectful consideration--he is by the Seventh-day Adventists at least--and he said, "Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and is to be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience." And so should we be protected, so long as we are law-abiding citizens. There are no saloon keepers among us.
We are as a body for prohibition; and as for the principles of Christian temperance, we conscientiously practice them. In short, you will find no people in this country or in the world, more peaceable and law-abiding than we endeavor to be. We teach the people according to the Scripture, to be subject to the powers that be; we teach them that the highest duty of the Christian citizen is strictly to obey the law,--to obey it not from fear
of punishment, but out of respect for governmental authority, and out of respect for God, and conscience towards Him.

tbc

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 22
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh-day Adventist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 7th Day: Fact and Fiction 8 min Saved By Grace 1,276
Jesus stated Ten C's was their JEWISH LAW (Aug '13) 3 hr Lay Worker 986
The Israeli Sabbath is a Covenant and a Festival (Oct '13) 3 hr Lay Worker 1,181
Sunday Law and SDA 6 hr Lay Worker 41
CLEAR Word BIBLE self-destruct SDA CHURCH! (Jun '12) 9 hr ChristSedKEEP ALL... 50
American food "weirdness" and how obsessing ove... 14 hr Stephen1989 1
Is Jesus Sabbath Thu Earburner 257
Pull your children out of the Adventist Schools (Jun '09) Aug 4 Canuck Schmuck 463
More from around the web