Chapter 19
The History of Sunday Legislation
PERHAPS the most persistent form of religious coercion
and the amalgamation of church and state, is seen in the history of the
development of Sunday legislation. We are indebted largely to material
provided by Doctor A. H. Lewis, Critical History of Sunday Legislation
from 321 to 1888, New York, D. Appleton & Company, 1888, as
summarized in William Blakely, American State Papers Bearing on Sunday
Legislation, 1891.
The first Sunday legislation to be introduced into the
Christian Church was a product of the pagan conception, fully developed by
the Romans, which made religion a department of the state. This enactment
was diametrically opposed to the principles of true Christianity as
enunciated in the New Testament by Christ and the Apostles. Such a
situation could never have pertained in a pure and faithful church.
Indeed, it did not find favor in most of the Christian church until
Christianity had been deeply corrupted through the influence of gnosticism
and other pagan errors. While it is proclaimed that the Emperor
Constantine had accepted Christianity, the truth of which is doubted by
many, at least there is no question that his thinking was still that of
the pagan.
Constantine issued the first Sunday legislation by
virtue of his power as Pontifex Maximus—the Supreme Pontiff (see chapter
11 entitled "The Development of Christian Persecution"). The
concept of Pontifex Maximus can be traced back to ancient Babylon, but in
Roman times it has its origin during the reign of Caesar Augustus from 23
b.c. to a.d. 14. This emperor was the Caesar of the incarnation of Jesus.
During his long reign, he strengthened very greatly the power of the Roman
Empire, and maintained a high level of peace. The Senate, in its desire to
honor him, bestowed upon him the title of Pontifex Maximus. Thereafter,
each Caesar and emperor of Rome, no matter how strong or weak his reign,
took the title, until the reign of Emperor Justinian in the sixth century.
In the dying embers of the Roman Empire, Emperor
Justinian invested the title of Pontifex Maximus upon the Bishop of Rome
(the Pope), John II in 533. However, it was not until the overthrow of the
Ostrogoths, three popes later, that Pope Vigilius in 538 was able to
exercise the civil power invested in the title Pontifex Maximus. Thus
Vigilius became the first pope to hold not only ecclesiastical power but
also to exercise political power. Thus while Constantine inaugurated state-church
union in the Christian world, the Bishop of Rome was able to reverse
this order and establish church-state authority, with the emphasis
upon the power of the church authority dominant over the state, rather
than the state authority dominant over the church. Now returning to
Constantine’s Sunday Law, the pagan nature of the law is clearly noted
in the fact that Constantine placed no Christian appellation upon the
worship on the first day of the week, rather referring it to the
"venerable day of the sun."
Let all judges and all city people and all tradesmen
rest upon the venerable day of the sun. But let those dwelling in the
country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their field;
since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of
grain or the planting of vines; hence, the favorable time should not be
allowed to pass, lest the provisions of heaven be lost. Quoted in Blakely,
p. 269
This was a difficult law for Christians, most of whom
at that time were still seventh-day Sabbath keepers. It was difficult
because Constantine had ended the terrible decade of persecution of
Christians that had begun under Emperor Diocletian in the year 303. The
Christians were greatly indebted to Constantine for their liberty, and
when he confessed to have embraced Christianity their joys were even
greater. Now they were in a particularly difficult situation. Constantine
had one goal, and that was to unite the empire that was now split strongly
between pagans and Christians. He believed that a unified day of worship
would go a long way toward reducing the tension between pagans and
Christians.
Thus it was that many Christians, in order to honor the
emperor and hopefully not to violate their conscience as Sabbath- keepers,
entered into the practice of keeping holy two days of the week, the
seventh and the first. Commonly, one day was chosen as a feast day and the
other one as a fast day. But this practice was one of compromise. It is a
principle of faith that when a false doctrine is given equal validity with
one that is true, inevitably it is the error which prevails, for truth can
never abide with error, while error happily associates with truth, for it
makes the error all the more deceptive. Thus it was predictable that the
Sunday worship of paganism would eventually supplant Sabbath keeping
enjoined by Scripture. History amply testifies to this result, a result
which persists to our day. Soon Rome became the seat of those who
advocated Sunday worship, proposing that it be the commemoration of the
resurrection of Jesus. However, much of the rest of the western world
advocated the seventh-day Sabbath as the primary day of worship, honoring
the Creation of God as established in the words of Scripture. After the
power of secular authority passed from the Roman Empire to Papal Rome
there was a rapid increase in the enforcement of Sunday sacredness, to the
disregard of Sabbath sacredness.
During the fourth to the sixth century, not only was
the observance of Sunday, the pagan day of worship, incorporated into
Christianity, but many other holidays, mostly pagan festivals, were
"sanctified" with new names slightly modified and claiming to be
Christian celebrations. Thus, in the seventh century, Spanish Christians
accepted Sunday sacredness, as did also the English Christians except for
a small minority who still believed in the biblical Sabbath. It was not
until the twelfth century that the Welsh and the Scots were forced into
Sunday observance.
In the thirteenth century, Marco Polo recorded Sabbath
keeping among the large group of Chinese Christians in the western regions
of China. The Syrian Christians of India upheld Sabbath-keeping until the
sixteenth century Portuguese Inquisition stamped it out. The Christians of
Ethiopia continued their Sabbath-keeping into the seventeenth century. (B.
G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, Pacific Press, 1944)
During the Middle Ages, Sunday legislation took on a
more judaistic direction, claiming that, with analogy to the Jewish
legislation in biblical times, civil authorities had the right to
legislate in religious matters after the manner of the Jewish Theocracy.
Thus, severe penalties were imposed on those who were not regular
attenders at church on Sunday, including, in some circumstances, the death
penalty.
The advent of the Reformation brought little change in
civil legislation concerning Sunday sacredness and worship. For example,
the English Reformation introduced a new theory and developed a distinct
type of legislation. It was during this period that for the first time,
the doctrine of the transfer of the fourth commandment to the first day of
the week led consequently to legislation consistent with this theory.
Thus, extensive theological treatises were written that were consistent
with civil enactments.
The Sunday laws during the Colonial days in North
America are the direct outgrowth of the Puritan legislation, notably of
those laws that arose during the time of the Commonwealth in England under
Oliver Cromwell. Thus, colonies such as Massachusetts and Virginia
enforced very severe penalties upon those who failed to worship regularly
in church on Sundays. After the Declaration of Independence and the
establishment of the new nation of the United States, the laws of colonial
times were greatly modified. The whole tendency has been to set forth laws
of a totally different character through the decisions of the courts.
In the Sunday law legislation of the Roman Empire, the
religious element were wholly subordinate to that of the civil power. In
the Middle Ages, and also under Cromwell as Lord Protector of England
(1649–1658), and during the colonial period of American history, the
church was supreme. After the amendments to the United States Constitution
of the Bill of Rights in 1791, any form of Sunday law began to be
challenged. Thus increasingly, claims were made that Sunday legislation is
not based on religious grounds. Such argumentation was devised to maintain
Sunday legislation by the power of the State without appearing to violate
the First Amendment of the American Constitution. Some legislators and
jurists were willing to accept such fragile arguments. However, other,
more perceptive legislators and jurists strongly opposed such
interpretations and recognized that any attempt to legislate a rest day
for the first day of the week was indeed an effort to uphold a religious
institution, something which was invalid in law based upon the Bill of
Rights.
These claims for Sunday rest, based upon so-called
secular reasoning, are clearly contradicted by the fact that for centuries
every Sunday law sprang from a religious sentiment. Under Constantine’s
legislation, the day was to be "venerated" as a religious duty
owed to the god of the sun. As the resurrection festival concept was
gradually combined with the pagan practice, religious regard for the day
was also demanded in honor of Christ’s resurrection. In the Middle Ages,
sacredness was claimed for Sunday because the Sabbath had been sacred
under the legislation of the Jewish Theocracy. Sunday was held supremely
sacred by the Puritans under the plea that the obligations imposed by the
fourth commandment were transferred from the seventh-day Sabbath to the
first-day, though no scriptural authority was found to sustain the change.
All these Sunday statutes enacted in the United States
prohibited "worldly labor," and permitted only works of
necessity and mercy on Sundays. There can be no valid meaning except as
they are based upon religious foundations. Surely there can be no
"worldly business" unless it is stated in contrast with
religious obligation. Thus every Sunday law that has been enacted within
the United States, and for that matter other countries of the world, is
based upon the idea that it is wrong to do on Sunday the things prohibited
in the fourth commandment. It must be acknowledged, then, that the
theories men invent for the observance of Sunday on non-religious grounds
have no logical value, unless it is understood that there is a covert
religious motivation.
To claim that the present Sunday laws do not designate
a day as a religious institution, is to deny every fact in the history
relevant to such legislation. Any claim otherwise is surely a shallow
subterfuge. If this were not so, advocates of a rest day would not focus
exclusively upon Sunday. They might decide to offer Friday, the sacred day
of the Muslims, as their proposed rest day. Or indeed they might choose a
day that is sacred to no religion, such as Tuesday or Wednesday, to
provide respite from labor in the middle of the week.
Religious observance legislation could not spring from
Apostolic Christianity. Every element of New Testament Christianity
forbade interference by the state in personal religious matters. Thus all
basis for legislating religious practice has its roots in pagan practice.
This is equally true for the observance of other religious days such as
Christmas and Easter. We have cited the pagan character of the first
Sunday legislation because in that legislation, Sunday is mentioned only
by its pagan name, "the venerable day of the sun."
In that legislation enacted by Constantine, there is no
inference that the legislation has anything whatsoever to do with
Christianity. There is no trace of the resurrection idea in the
legislation. No reference is made to the fourth commandment of the
Decalogue nor anything connected with it. The law was made for all the
empire. It applied to every subject alike, Christian or pagan or
nonbeliever.
The pagan mentality of Constantine can be deduced from
the fact that on the day following the publication of the edict concerning
Sunday observance, another edict was issued ordering that the haruspices
(soothsayers who especially use the entrails of slain victims to deduce
the will of the gods) be consulted in cases of public calamity. Surely
this practice demonstrates the thoroughly pagan mentality of Constantine
and the attitude the emperor still retained, together with the influences
which controlled him.
According to Doctor Lewis, all Sunday legislation is
the product of pagan Rome. The Saxon laws were the product of the Middle
Age legislation of the "Holy Roman Empire." The English laws are
an expansion of the Saxon, and the American are a transcript of the
English laws. (As quoted in Blakely, p. 270)
Lewis correctly points out that the Sunday law issued
under King Charles II of England in 1676 was the law of the American
colonies up to the time of the Revolution, and so became the basis of the
American Sunday laws. Charles II’s law forbade any work whatsoever by
tradesmen, laborers, and business men on the "Lord’s Day"
(Sunday). The penalty for those over the age of fourteen breaching the law
was a fine of five shillings. The law also provided for the confiscation
of any goods that a merchant was offering for sale on Sunday. Anyone who
could not meet the financial penalties was to be set in public stocks for
the space of two hours.
Let it be understood, notwithstanding the enactment of
the First Amendment to the American Constitution, the concept of Sunday
law and the effort to regard Sunday sacredness was so ingrained in the
history of the American people that it seemed almost impossible for them
to understand that such legislation should cease to be enacted or to be
enforced in the new nation. Thus it was that the nineteenth century became
a battleground for and against Sunday legislation.
|