Another Religious Liberty Mass-Meeting in Washington
By W. A. Colcord
ANOTHER interesting and successful religious liberty mass-meeting was held in Washington, D. C., Sunday night, February 6. Although the weather was unfavorable for such a meeting, being extremely cold, and this accentuated by a high wind, there was a good attendance, the hall in which the meeting was held, having a seating capacity of over eight hundred, being quite well filled. The meeting was held in the National Rifles’ Armory, the same place in which a similar mass-meeting was held nearly two years ago, March 11, 1908. This hall is located in the very heart of the business portion of the city, and is therefore easily accessible to citizens of the District. Our own people in the District turned out well, considering the weather, and, as might be expected, composed a considerable proportion of the audience. We are thankful that the work has developed in the city of Washington so that we now have so good a representation and so considerable a constituency of our people here at the capital of the nation. The meeting was well advertised on bulletin-boards, by quarter cards placed in shop windows, by several thousand hand cards distributed throughout the city, and by announcements in the daily papers. The cards distributed read as follows: “Mass-meeting. Sunday Laws Versus Civil and Religious Liberty. A Protest Against the Encroachments upon the Civil and Religious Rights of the People. Shall Congress Prescribe Your Religion? The Johnston Bill Discussed,” followed by the announcement of the place, date, and speakers. All four of the Washington daily papers the following day gave reports of the meeting, the Washington Herald, a leading morning paper, devoting a column to it, and giving it first-column, first-page position. The various headings under which these reports were given were: “Protest En Masse to Sunday Bill;” “Sunday Bill Opposed;” “Denounce Sunday Bill;” and “Johnston Measure Meets Opposition.” The speakers of the evening were Elders K. C. Russell, E. W. Farnsworth, W. W. Prescott, and the writer. We can here give but a brief outline of the addresses delivered:— Introductory Address by K. C. Russell
Elder K. C. Russell, the chairman of the meeting, said:— “We believe in the Christian religion, and therefore in the Christian Sabbath. We believe that those who voluntarily and truly observe the Sabbath receive a blessing. We believe that the state, or civil government, is ordained of God, and that it is the duty of every citizen to obey civil government in civil things, and for Christians to pray for those in authority.17state can rightfully enforce upon any of its citizens the observance of any religious duty, such as the observance of the Sabbath. The state would have no more right to enforce Sabbath observance than it would baptism or the Lord’s supper. For any one to ask the state to enforce the observance of the Sabbath is to lower it to the level of worldly and common things.” “We therefore protest against the passage of the Johnston Sunday bill or any like measure, not because of any opposition or hostility we have to religion, to the Sabbath, or to civil government, but because of our fidelity to these and our loyalty to the Constitution of the United States.” “On this point the eminent Baptist clergyman, Charles H. Spurgeon, has said: ‘I am ashamed of some Christians because they have so much dependence on Parliament and the law of the land. Much good may Parliament ever do to true religion, except by mistake!’” “In a tribute to Col. Richard M. Johnson, the author of the famous Congressional Sunday Mail Reports, of 1829 and 1830, who opposed the demand upon Congress to enact a Sunday law, his biographer says: ‘Charge him not with hostility to the principles of religion, because he opposed the wishes and thwarted the designs of the clergy; rather say that he has proved himself the friend of pure religion, by guarding it against a contaminating alliance with politics.’” Address by E. W. Farnsworth
Elder E. W. Farnsworth spoke as follows:— “We protest against the passage of the Johnston Sunday bill and all like legislation, not because Sunday is not the Sabbath, as most intelligent men know; and not because the seventh day, Saturday, is the Sabbath, as every one ought to know; but because the Sabbath is truly and only a religious institution, and Sabbath-keeping is a religious exercise. Therefore to enforce Sabbath-keeping by civil law is to enforce religion by civil law. The enforcement of religious enactments by civil law is a union of church and state, and against such an unholy alliance we make unqualified protest.” “We affirm that members of Congress have no right to leave the civil realm to which they were elected, and step over into the religious realm to which they were not elected.” “The constituencies that sent their representatives to Congress gave them full liberty in things civil. They expect these men will discuss and legislate on the tariff, the conservation of natural resources, trusts, and a thousand other civil things, and that they will enact such laws concerning these things as may to them seem best; but they would be shocked to learn that Congress had attempted to settle, by civil statute, whether men should be sprinkled, poured, or immersed, or whether they should be baptized at all. There would be voices of protest everywhere if Congress should attempt, by law, to force every one to partake of the Lord’s supper. Every one would say that such legislation was religious, and that with such things Congress has nothing whatever to do. The voters all over this fair land would say, ‘We sent you to Congress to represent us in civil things only, and we never gave you the right to legislate concerning our religious duties or convictions.’” “Further than this, they would say to members of Congress: ‘It is none of your business how a man is baptized, or whether he is baptized at all. You have no right to inquire whether a man partakes of the Lord’s supper every three months, once a week, or not at all. It is not a part of your duty to know whether your constituents pray once or twice a day, or never.’” “It is well to pray, to be baptized, to partake of the Lord’s supper, and to keep the Sabbath. The speaker believes in all these, and practises them all. He firmly believes the world would be immeasurably benefited if every individual would comply with the Bible requirements concerning these Christian duties; but they are one and all beyond the realm of human legislation. They all relate to a man’s personal relations with God, and over such duties Congress can, of right, have no jurisdiction.” “That the Sabbath is religious is abundantly affirmed by its Author and Maker. ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy’—not civilly—is the command of God. ‘Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep. . . . Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you. . . . Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord’—not civilly to the state. ‘If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day.’ You will notice that the Sabbath is God’s ‘holy day.’ It is not a civil day, nor a holiday, nor is it something to be kept or observed for the state. It is God’s day, and ‘he that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.’ ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,’ not the day of the state or the nation.” “The Sabbath was sanctified by God, hence it is his holy day. Having made the day holy, God commands men to keep it holy. As well might civil government attempt to enforce the Lord’s prayer, the Lord’s baptism, or the Lord’s supper, as to enforce the Lord’s day. If we concede the right of government to enforce one, we are bound, logically, to concede it has the right to enforce all.” The Johnston Bill Discussed by W. W. Prescott
Elder W. W. Prescott then discussed the character of the proposed legislation as indicated by the discussion on the floor of the Senate. He thought that there were sufficient arguments produced in the discussion to condemn the bill, even in its amended form, and called attention to three features of the opposition, as follows:— “1. A senator declared that those who were asking for this legislation probably would never have thought about the matter except as religionists, although they made their demand as citizens. The real purpose of this measure is thus clearly indicated, which is to secure preference by law for some religious tenet or institution. But it was not the intent of the founders of this government that the power of Congress should be invoked by any class of religionists, nor to give them a preference over their fellow religionists, or over unbelievers. Congress can not properly deal with men as religionists, but simply as citizens, and all on a common footing.” “2. It was emphasized by the chairman man of the Committee on the District of Columbia that at present there is no Sunday rest law in the District of Columbia. It follows, therefore, that any such legislation would be a departure from a policy which has been followed for more than a century and a quarter, and yet in the face of this fact, a witness at a hearing before the House Committee on the District of Columbia, during the last session of Congress, admitted in reply to a question by a member of the committee, that he knew of no city in which Sunday was better observed than in Washington. It appears, then, that the Sunday laws in the various States have not contributed to a quieter Sunday than is found in the District of Columbia without such a law. Nearly a century ago Congress refused to recognize any distinction between the days of the week in favor of any class of citizens, and has constantly adhered to that policy until the present time. A departure from this policy would be a step backward.” “3. The proposed legislation would be a first step in a part fraught with much danger. One senator declared: ‘I think in a republican form of government, one of the most dangerous programs that legislators can enter upon is anything looking toward the establishment of a religious test through a court of law.’ Another senator declared: ‘When we get reforms in the hands of reformers, they are generally emotional people with small development of the rational faculty, and prompted by their repeated successes, they go from one reform to another, and it is proposed that one shall attend church on Sunday; then a particular church; then a constable is permitted to invade one’s home if he does not attend church, to see whether or not he is sick; then one can not kiss his wife on Sunday. The beginnings of these things are very innocent.’” “The history of religious legislation in the past justifies this view of the case. The only safe course for Congress is to avoid the first step.” Before introducing the resolutions, the writer spoke briefly of the history of Sunday legislation in both Europe and America, and what this shows as to the character and object of such legislation. He said:— “The Boston Post of April 14, 1907, spoke truly when, referring to the present Sunday laws of Massachusetts, it said, ‘These Sunday laws are a survival of the complete union of church and state which existed at the founding of the colony.’ And what is true of the Massachusetts Sunday laws is true of American Sunday laws in general. They are simply relics of a complete union of church and state.” “The early Sunday laws of Massachusetts and Virginia required church attendance. The present movement for Sunday enforcement is for the same purpose. At the hearing on the Blair Sunday bill, Dec. 13, 1888, the first speaker, Dr. Crafts, urged the passage of the bill on the ground that work in post-offices on Sunday on the part of employees ‘would prevent them from going to church,’ and said, ‘A law forbidding the opening of the United States post-office during the usual hours of public worship would remedy this difficulty.’ ‘Give us good Sunday laws, well enforced by men in local authority,’ says another, ‘and18our churches will be full of worshipers.’” “In agitations of this kind there is heard the ever-recurring argument of majority rule. The House Sunday Mail Report, of 1830, well answered this when it said: ‘The principles of our government do not recognize in the majority any authority over the minority, except in matters which regard the conduct of man to his fellow man.’ ‘The Constitution regards the conscience of the Jew as sacred as that of the Christian, and gives no more authority to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual than that of a whole community.’” “But conscience will be little respected if this Sunday-law movement succeeds. Says the Christian Advocate, of Dallas, Tex., ‘It will not be long, at the present rate of progress, until Sunday will be left to the conscience of the individual.’ What a calamity that would be, wouldn’t it?” “No greater wrong can man do to man than to trample upon the rights of conscience. No greater calamity can come to the church or state than the evils resulting from a union of the two. So long as a church remains pure, it does not seek the power of the state for the furtherance of its ends. With the Word of God in its hand, it appeals only to the hearts and consciences of men. So long as it holds only to Bible truth, it asks for no laws enforcing its faith and practise. But when it departs from the faith, then it asks that the strong arm of the civil power shall come to its aid, and dissenters are made to feel the hands of oppression. This is what is wrapped up in this Sunday-law movement. This is what we shall see in this land if this movement succeeds.” At the close of the addresses the following resolutions were adopted by a rising vote:— “Whereas, There is a wide-spread and persistent effort being made, both in Washington and throughout the country, to secure national religious legislation, particularly in the matter of Sunday observance; and,— “Whereas, All such legislation is subversive of human rights, contrary to the spirit and teachings of Christ and pure Christianity and to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States, inimical to the best interests of both the church and the state, and, in the end, can result only in a complete union of church and state, the great desolating scourge of all time; and,— “Whereas, In order to conceal the real character of the movement, the measures sought are frequently styled ‘civil enactments,’ ‘police regulations,’ ‘temperance measures,’ and ‘laboring men’s laws;’ therefore,— “Resolved, That we, citizens of Washington, in mass-meeting assembled, in the interests of peace, prosperity, pure religion, and good government, hereby respectfully but most earnestly protest against the passage by Congress of any law for the enforced observance of Sunday as a Sabbath, or day of rest; that we express our disapproval of any movement calling for such legislation, and also of the effort to conceal its religious character, and that we pledge ourselves to do all we can to perpetuate in this country the blessings of civil and religious liberty.” Seconding the motion to adopt the resolution, Elder W. A. Hennig made a few brief, well-chosen remarks, illustrative of how great evils spring from very small beginnings. Excellent music was rendered by the Takoma orchestra and male quartet. The singing of the religious liberty “Glory Song,” led by Miss Nellie Macmillan, with the audience joining in the chorus, was also much appreciated. Two days later the Washington Chamber of Commerce, in a meeting attended by twenty-five leading business men of the city, unanimously adopted a report disapproving of the Johnston bill as “in bad form and inimical to the best interests of the majority of the residents of the District,” thus echoing our meeting, it would seem, both in sentiment and in expression. The four dailies reporting the meeting reach practically the entire city. On the whole, therefore, we feel that the meeting was a grand success.