A Sabbath Observance Convention was held at Sedalia, Missouri, May 23 and 24. After the organization of the convention, a paper was read by Rev. T. A. Tatlow, of Edina, on “Sabbath Observance in Rural Life.” The main point of the paper was to show that Sabbath observance “has a quickening and abiding influence upon man, especially in rural life, because he is in such life especially impressed with a sense of his dependence upon God. For not only man himself, but even his cattle also, are directly dependent for their subsistence upon the products of the earth. . . . Therefore, as far as the divine law regarding the Sabbath-day contemplates the secular good of man, so far the civil power must obey the law and secure proper secular obedience to it on the part of its subjects.” The reading of the paper was followed by a free discussion of its contents, Rev. M. A. Gault being first to speak. He said:— “This question [whether Government shall appeal to the divine authority in enforcing Sabbath legislation] has been put by Dr. Howard Crosby in this form: He says that Governments should not say you must keep the Sabbath because God says so. That is not the province, he says, of civil government. That Government has no right to compel another or higher authority than the will of the people. All that Government can say is prescribed by the will of the people, according to Crosby. And Dr. Crafts very heartily declares and teaches that Governments should say you must keep the Sabbath because it is good for you; because, as Brother Tatlow has stated to you, it is a law of our physical being. We must have one day’s rest in seven, therefore Governments should have Sabbath laws, but not to compel divine authority in enforcing those Sabbath laws.
“Now we take the ground that Governments should invoke divine authority on this question; Governments should say to the people, You must keep the Sabbath, and have the Sabbath’s rest secured to all classes, not merely because it is good for you, but because God says so; because there is a divine appointment behind this question. The point may be illustrated by the story of a man who had a melon patch, and who put up at one end of the patch a sign which read as follows: ‘Boys, don’t steal these melons, for they are green, and God sees you.’ That is, that farmer appealed to divine authority. He gave the boys to understand that they must not steal melons, not merely because it would injure them, but because God saw them. And in that way he reached their conscience.” “Well, that simple idea of the farmer expresses the philosophy that underlies this whole question. I believe that Government can reach the conscience of the people. A man without God is a man without a conscience, and a Government without God is a Government without a conscience. A Government has no right upon the conscience of man to enforce a law without recognizing the idea of a supreme Being, the Almighty God, as revealed in Jesus Christ. Now, the only reason why I should appeal to divine authority on this question is because God is the source of all legitimate authority, whether in the family, or in the church, or in the State,—God is the source of all authority. We cannot go back of God to find even a definition of virtue or a standard of virtue, or the authority for virtue. And you may take this position, and hold it successfully,—that without God, without the ten commandments, there is no right or wrong. You cannot go back of God’s decalogue to find a definition of right. So this is a fundamental question. “Now, when the child asks the parent, What business have you to order me around, that parent can say, God has vested me with parental authority. So it is in the church; the church appeals to the divine law; and so the State must also appeal to the divine law. Now, let me explain here that we do not mean that the State should appeal to the ecclesiastical law, nor to the divine law. The ecclesiastical law binds the church, and the civil law binds the State. Civil government has no right to compel people to religiously observe the Sabbath-day, or to compel the church to perform any religious duty as such; that is beyond the province of the State. But the civil law—the ten commandments—because they are civil—they bind the State. They bind the State just as well as they bind the church.” The Chairman—“The discussion is now open for anyone to take part in it.” Elder R. C. Porter, in addressing the chairman and members of the convention, said:— “It is hardly to be expected that all of us, without any discussion, would see eye to eye upon this question; and possibly what I may have to say will not be exactly in harmony with what Brother Gault has said. The question before us is whether it is the province of human government to appeal to the divine law in enforcing the Sabbath. And as I look at that question it seems to me that I shall be compelled to differ with Brother Gault upon this question simply for this reason: Our Saviour has taught us in the sacred record that we should render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. Cæsar represents civil government. The things to be rendered to God are our religious obligations to him. Now, the question to be settled with reference to the subject of172this discussion is, Is the Sabbath God’s, or is it Cæsar’s? If it is the Lord’s, then render it to God, not by Cæsar, or through Cæsar, but to God, because it is his. The Sabbath is the Lord’s; then we should render it to God, not because Cæsar says so, but because we should render to God the things that are God’s, and the Sabbath is the Lord’s, and God does not ask Cæsar to have anything to do with rendering to him the things that are his. We are to remember the Sabbath-day in obedience to the command of God, and Cæsar has no right to say whether we shall or shall not render obedience to that command. But the Lord will hold us individually responsible for his claims upon us, and we will have to settle that with God. Therefore, it seems to me that the logical conclusion of the matter is that God does not want us to frame laws that would compel anybody to render obedience to that which he claims as his. “Now let me illustrate: Suppose we take that precept and appeal to the divine law in support of the idea that we should remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Now, I ask, what would be the result of it? The result of it would be that the first question to be decided is, What was the intent of the Lawgiver in giving the law? Cooley, in his ‘Constitutional Limitations,’ says: ‘It is the intent of the lawgiver that is to be enforced.’ Then the object of the State is to enforce the intent of the lawgiver when the law was made. Suppose we apply that to the divine law. What was the intent of the Lawgiver in making the law concerning the Sabbath? It was to enforce the seventh day as the Sabbath. Then applying this rule of interpretation in the enforcement of law, would we not be obliged to keep the seventh day, as that was, unquestionably, the intent of the Lawgiver when the law was made? But even suppose that the intent of the Lawgiver should be carried out by a civil enactment, compelling all people to keep the seventh day, I should as strongly oppose any such an enactment as I would if it enforced the observance of the first day of the week, on the ground that it would interfere with the rights of conscience of those who conscientiously believe they should observe the first day of the week, and that civil government has no right to interfere with the rights of conscience, or to legislate with reference to religion, or to dictate what a man shall or shall not believe. “If the State has a right to enforce one precept because it is a divine commandment, it has a right to enforce all other religious obligations, because they are divine commandments. It is unsafe for us to appeal to the divine law and make that the basis of our statute laws simply because it is a divine law. Civil laws are the natural outgrowth of the civil relations of man with his fellowman. It is the province of human government, if that be true, to legislate only with respect to these civil relations. Then, suppose we should appeal in the enforcement of the fourth commandment to the divine law, as stated by Brother Gault, why would we not then be at liberty to take another step and appeal to another precept, which says, ‘If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.’ Then would we not have an equal right to appeal to this precept and enforce it by civil statute? But if this were done, how could a criminal ever be brought to trial in any court of justice? And so when we come to look the matter squarely in the face, in consideration of these facts, we see that the true province of civil government, as declared in our Saviour’s words, is to render to Cæsar only the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Mr. W. P. Gray, secretary of the convention, then said:— “I for one have made this question very much of a study, especially that topic of it. To appeal to divine authority in our legislation on this subject would be to fundamentally change the law of our land, or the principle adopted by our fathers when they said that all Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. I for one do not believe that, as a political maxim, Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And I believe with Mr. Gault on this, I think. And so the object of this movement is an effort to change that feature in our fundamental law. Jefferson was under the influence of French ideas when the Constitution was framed; and that had something to do with leaving God out of the Constitution. And I think that the provincial history of this country will compel us to come back to that and recognize God in our Constitution. And I see in this reform a providence teaching us the necessity of recognizing something else besides the will of the people as the basis of government.”