Untitled article | AdventAI

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · January 17, 1895

Alexander Campbell on Protecting Religious Rites From Contempt.

[In 1820 there was organized in West Middletown, Washington Co., Pa., a society, called the West Middletown Moral Society. The principal object of the society was to enforce the Pennsylvania Sunday law of 1794, which is still on the statute books of the State. This Moral Society was organized by the United Presbyterians, the same people who, later in 1863, organized the National Reform Association. Alexander Campbell, the founder of the Christian or Disciple Church, ably opposed the society in a series of articles published in the Reporter, of Washington, county seat of Washington County. His articles were signed “Candidus.” A United Presbyterian minister, by the name of Wylie, attempted to defend the society, and signed himself “Timothy.” The discussion continued from April 17, 1820, the date of Mr. Campbell’s first article, to February 22, 1822, during which time almost every phase of the compulsory Sunday law question was treated. As a result the Moral Society perished, not to appear again until 1863 when it was revived by the same denomination under the name, National Reform Association. Every word of Mr. Campbell’s invincible logic and withering denunciation is applicable to the association, resuscitated under the name, National Reform Association, and kindred organizations, such as the American Sabbath Union, the Pennsylvania Sabbath Association, etc.]

I RESUME Mr. T.’s fourth argument. That an infallible tribunal is requisite to prescribe and determine the public forms of religion, has been enforced in my last; and that it must also decree what it is to treat any of the public forms of religion with contempt, is, we think, equally within the pale of its jurisdiction. The Romanist says, To refuse or to neglect to bow in the presence of the elevation of the host, is to treat the public forms of religion with contempt. The Episcopalian says, To refuse or to neglect to kneel at the celebration of the supper and in certain other devotional exercises of their public worship, is to treat religion with contempt. The Presbyterian says, To drive a wagon on the “Sabbath day,” when the driver should be at meeting, is to treat religion with contempt. The Seceder says, To substitute Watt’s hymns and the new music in public worship instead of the Psalms of David and the twelve good old tunes of David, is to treat one of the public forms of religion with contempt. The Covenanter says, To refuse or neglect to maintain, hold fast, and defend, the doctrine of the Solemn League and Covenant, and the divine right of the civil magistrate to officiate in the cause of religion, is to treat one of the forms of religion with contempt. The Methodist says, To neglect or to refuse to be subject to the discipline of the church, is to treat the public forms of religion with contempt. The Baptist says, To sprinkle an infant is to treat one of the public forms of religion with contempt. The Quaker says that he that will not take his intended bride by the hand and lead her through the meeting-house at three monthly meetings, previous to the solemnization of the bonds of matrimony, has treated one of the public forms of religion with contempt. But here a casuist comes forward and declares that not any of the preceding sins of omission or commission, treat religion with contempt, unless they proceed from a spirit of rancor, malice, or disdain; and that the state of mind from which such actions proceed, must first be ascertained, and before the character of those actions can be determined. For, says he, it is the motive that characterizes the action, and hence there are simple mistakes or sins of ignorance, as well as wilful and malicious offenses. So that unless we have a pope or an infallible tribunal of appeal, Timothy’s principle of coercion and restraint is a dead letter.

I affirm then, that Timothy’s principles of coercion and restraint are necessarily connected and inseparably linked with the “holy inquisition,” and that it is essentially the same with that on which all civil establishments of Christianity have been founded, and from which all bloody persecutions have originated since the sword of the civil magistrate learned to serve at the altar.

And has our opposition to the Moral Society as hostile to civil and religious liberty, to pure religion and sound morality, led their defender to avow a principle so dangerous to the community, so subservient to ecclesiastical domination, so subversive of the basis of our free government!! And a Pennsylvanian, too! Has it been said that it is the duty of the legislature to enact, and the civil magistrate to execute, such laws as will protect the public forms of religion from contempt! Ambiguous and dangerous assertion! Capable of being carried to any extreme and necessarily tending to make one form of religion the standard, and to trample every other form in the dust.

The following is a specimen of legislation on Mr. T.’s principle of coercion and constraint:—

“Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States, acting under the immediate direction of the Ruler of the universe, in relation to his peculiar cause, and authorized by him to protect the public forms of the Christian religion from contempt; a majority of us, notwithstanding, being aliens from the Church, and voluntarily excluded from her communion; yet, conceiving it our duty, as his ministers teach us to protect from contempt the public forms of Christianity, we do enact and decree, that every male, from twelve to sixty-five years of age, shall duly, regularly, and devoutly attend all the public ministrations of the “ambassadors of heaven,” on the “Christian Sabbath” and other holy days, fast days, etc., etc., and that all females, from fourteen to forty-eight years of age, shall do the same; provided always, that the mercury in Fahrenheit’s thermometer on such days is not above ninety-six degrees, nor below fourteen. And provided, also that the pulse of the subject of this law beat from fifty to seventy-five times in a minute.

“2. Be it also enacted, that each person stand up in the time of public prayer for at least one half hour, and should his reverence be too prolix, as mercy has ever been preferred to sacrifice, the subject of this law may sit down.

“3. Be it also enacted, that each person as above defined shall sing with a loud voice, or if they can not sing, make a suitable noise as loud as singing; provided always, that asthmatic persons and other invalids be exempted.

“4. Be it also enacted, that by the authority aforesaid, whosoever shall transgress the provisions, or neglect to comply with the requirements of this law, shall be punished at the discretion of the clergy; provided always, that none be put to death except in cases of aggravated contempt.”—Candidus (Alexander Campbell), in Washington (Pa.) Reporter, Oct. 28, 1821.