The Petition and the Inquisition.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE supplement to the March monthly document of the American Sabbath Union was devoted to a statement of how the friends of the Sunday might co-operate with the union. Following an extract from the constitution, which states that the object of the union is “to preserve the Christian Sabbath as a day of rest and worship,” there was an earnest appeal to every individual to push the petitions for a Sunday law, making not the least abatement because Congress had adjourned. The following form of petition was suggested:— “The undersigned organizations and adult residents of the United States, twenty-one years of age or more, earnestly petition you to pass a bill forbidding in the government’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 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.” We claim that this petition alone furnishes ample proof that the American Sabbath Union contemplates a union of Church and State in the fullest sense, and is providing—unconsciously it may be, but none the less surely—for the establishment of the Inquisition. Strange as it may seem to some, we find the strongest proof of this in the proposed exemption of those that observe another day. The workers for a Sunday law lay a great deal of stress on the fact that they make such an exception. In his speech before the Senate Committee, Mr. Crafts spoke of the exception that is made to the Seventh-day Baptists by the laws of Rhode Island, allowing them to carry on public industries on the first day of the week, and said that “the tendency of Legislatures and executive officers towards those who claim to keep a Saturday Sabbath is to over-leniency rather than over-strictness.” In the same hearing Mrs. Bateham spoke of the exemption that was asked for in the petition, stating that they would like to exempt Seventh-day keepers from the penalties of the law for which they asked, providing it could be done, but that if such an exemption would work against the general enforcement of the law then they did not wish it. These statements show that they simply regard themselves as making a great concession when they do not persecute people who rest upon Saturday. Dr. Bothwell, of Oakland, Cal., stated their feeling very well when he said: “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. 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.” With these statements compare the following from the first chapter of Dr. Schaff’s work on “The Progress of Religious Freedom, as Shown in the History of Toleration Acts.” Says he:— “An edict or act of toleration is a grant of the civil government, which authorizes religious societies dissenting from the State religion to worship according to the dictates of conscience without liability to persecution. Such an edict always presupposes a religion established by law and supported by the State, and the right of the State to control public worship. Toleration may proceed from necessity, or from prudence, or from indifference, or from liberality and an enlarged view of truth and right. It may be extended or withdrawn by the government; but it is usually the entering wedge for religious liberty and legal equality. “There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. The one is a concession, the other a right; the one is a matter of expediency, the other a principle; the one is a gift of man, the other a gift of God. “Toleration implies more or less censure or disapproval. We tolerate or endure what we dislike or cannot prevent. The most despotic governments are tolerant towards subjects who are too numerous or too useful to be killed or exiled. Russia tolerates Romanists, Protestants, Jews, and Mohammedans; Turkey tolerates ‘Christian dogs,’ and likes them to prey upon each other; but woe to him in either country who apostatizes from the State religion, or attempts to induce any member of the same to apostasy. Toleration is first sought and granted as a favor, then demanded and conceded as a right, and at last spurned as an insult. In a free country nobody wants to be tolerated for his religious opinions or sacred convictions. “Religious liberty is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable right of every man. It is founded on the sacredness of conscience, which is the voice of God in man, and above the reach and control of human authority. There is a law above all human laws. It is written, not on parchment and tables of stone, but on the heart of man by the finger of God. It is that law which commands with the categorical imperative, and which filled the philosopher Kant with ever-growing reverence and awe. ‘We must obey God more than man.’ He and he alone is the Author and Lord of conscience, and no power on earth has a right to interpose itself between them. ‘Every man stands or falls to his own Lord.’ Liberty of conscience requires liberty of worship as its manifestation. To grant the former and to deny the latter is to imprison conscience and to promote hypocrisy or infidelity. Religion is in its nature voluntary, and ceases to be religion in proportion as it is forced. God wants free worshipers, and no others. “Toleration is an intermediate state between religious persecution and religious liberty. Persecution306results from the union of Church and State; toleration, from a relaxation of that union; full religious liberty and legal equality require a peaceful separation of the spiritual and secular powers.” Note particularly what he says of toleration, that it is an intermediate state between religious persecution and religious liberty. He says also that it is usually “the entering wedge for religious liberty and legal equality.” This is true, providing it has been preceded by despotic intolerance. If a government has rigidly persecuted everyone who dissents from the established religion, then an act of toleration would be the entering wedge toward religious liberty—a step toward freedom; but if perfect liberty and equality have been enjoyed by the citizens of a government, then an act of toleration would be a long stride toward the taking away of religious freedom. For an act of toleration, as Dr. Schaff truly says, “Always presupposes a religion established by law and supported by the State, and the right of the State to control public worship.” The very fact of exemptions being thought of in a law—the use of the word concession and toleration—shows the existence of a despotic law; so that the more the Sunday-law advocates talk about concessions, the more they boast of their leniency, the more they press their petition for a Sunday law which shall exempt those who religiously and regularly observe another day,—the more they proclaim the fact that they are working for a State religion. Now, whenever a religion, or any form of religion, is established by the State, the Inquisition and persecution must inevitably follow. For in such a case an offense against the established religion is an offense against the State; and of course the State is bound to punish all who violate its laws. But punishment by the State for differences of opinion, or of acts in matters of religion, is persecution. Note particularly the petition which we quoted. It provides for the exemption of those who “religiously and regularly” observe another day of the week. How, in the face of this, it is possible for the framers and advocates of that petition to claim that they are not working for a State religion, it is impossible for us to conceive. That petition lays the foundation for the Inquisition; and if a law should be passed in harmony with it, the Inquisition would have to be established. How can the State tell who do and who do not religiously observe another day? Anyone can see that the petition plans for the State to inquire, not simply into a man’s religious or irreligious acts, but into the motives of his acts. Of course it is well understood that under all circumstances there are people who have a form of religion, people who do certain things professedly in the name of religion, yet from selfish motives. Now if a law is passed in accordance with this petition, the State through its officers would be obliged to inquire into the motives which prompt a man’s rest upon Saturday. No individual will have any guarantee that he will remain unmolested for a week. He may be brought up at any time at the instigation of any bigot or any person who has a fancied grudge towards him, and put under examination as to whether or not he observes another day from religious motives. And the worst of it all will be that in such examination his own testimony will avail nothing. Of course those who do observe the day religiously would say so; and any who are not conscientious in their observance of the day would, in order to escape the penalty, declare that they observed it religiously. And so whether or not a person were cleared would depend upon the testimony of men who might have bitter prejudice toward him. We believe that every thoughtful, candid individual can see that to work for this petition is to work directly for as wicked a persecution as ever existed on earth. Let those who see this point use all their energy in setting the light clearly before others, in order that they may not be deceived by the specious arguments of those who are working for the Sunday law. To every individual that petition will be presented, and many will be misled by its outward pretention to justice and of caring for the rights of a minority, unaware that in this very concession is the strongest proof of the wicked character of the proposed law. E. J. W.