TWO PERTINENT QUESTIONS.
By W. N. G.
1. Shall the free public preaching of the Gospel be prohibited in Boston? This question is propounded in an address by Rev. J. M. Foster, published in the Christian Statesman of the current month. In course of his remarks, he gives some interesting facts involving the question of religious liberty in this country, from which the following paragraphs are extracts:— “From the time that Boston had a Common, the Gospel enjoyed the freedom of the city until the enemy came and stole away this liberty. In 1740 Whitefield preached here to 30,000 people. In 1790 Jesse Lee preached. He began his sermon with three hearers, but before he closed, there were as many thousands as could hear. In January, 1862, under cover of the excitement of the Civil War, an ordinance was passed which reads: ‘No person shall deliver a sermon, lecture, address, or discourse on the Common, Public Garden, Public Square, or common lands of the city, without permission of the Mayor and aldermen.’ Permits under this act seem to have been freely granted. As early as 1867 the Young Men’s Christian Association of this city availed itself of this privilege.” “In 1870 the issuing of these permits was delegated to a joint committee of three aldermen and five members of the common council. This committee gave permits without hesitation for ten years. From 1882 to 1885 no permits were granted to any one. In April, 1882, Brother Wm. F. Davis asked the police commissioners this question: ‘Will you be kind enough to tell me whether you construe the free public preaching of the Gospel in Boston as a breach of the peace or not? Would you instruct the policemen to break up an orderly Gospel meeting on public grounds, which does not obstruct any thoroughfare of the city nor trespass on public rights?’ The chairman of the board responded, ‘Oh, no, we never should do that!’” “Accordingly, during June, July, and August, 1882, Brother Davis conducted open-air meetings on Boston Common every Sabbath afternoon without a permit. In July, 1884, he was arrested and led to the police station for preaching. In 1885 the present form of restriction was adopted: ‘No person shall, except by permission of the mayor, deliver a sermon, lecture, address, or discourse, on the Common or public grounds.’” “One Sabbath in May, 1885, Rev. Dr. A. J. Gordon, Rev. H. L. Hastings, and Brother Wm. F. Davis preached on the Common without the mayor’s permission. They were arrested and imprisoned. In 1887 Brother Davis was again arrested for the same cause, convicted and imprisoned in Charles Street jail for almost a year. Governor Ames was asked to pardon him. The governor said, ‘The prisoner must ask me for pardon.’ Brother Davis said: ‘I will not ask the governor to pardon me for doing wrong in this matter, for I did right. I will ask him to remove the effects of this iniquitous legislation.’ No pardon was granted.” “On the 6th of November, 1887, an indignation meeting was held in Bowdoin Square Tabernacle. Rev. Dr. A. H. Plumb made an unanswerable argument against this gag law. He quoted from the Commentaries on the Laws of England respecting the liberty of speech and public worship, from the Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and from our national Bill of Rights, showing that this ordinance is an invasion of the inalienable rights of the people. Rev. Joseph Cook spoke against the ordinance on the grounds of precedent, policy, Christian philanthropy and civil rights.” “In 1894 Brother Davis was again arrested and convicted for preaching without a permit. He took an appeal and the sentence was stayed. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts sustained the lower court, Judge Holmes alleging that the city government had an absolute right over the public grounds. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. Lawyer James F. Pickering prepared an elaborate brief and submitted that without appearing personally. In it he quoted the decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan in a similar case, to the effect that no legislative act could make that a crime which was innocent in itself. Their conclusion was the direct opposite to that reached by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.” “Judge White [of the U. S. Supreme Court] . . . gave the decision against Brother Davis last March. This decision was handed down to the lower court on June 12, 1897, and he was fined $20. Failing to pay he was sentenced to imprisonment for three months. Governor Wolcott was asked to pardon him. He agreed to do so on condition that Brother Davis would consent not to preach on public grounds without a permit. Brother Davis replied: ‘The mayor absolutely refuses to give permits to preach the Gospel in Franklin Park, Marine Park, the Public Garden, the public squares and in the Common except one narrow strip. If I were to ask him for a permit there, I would recognize his right to prohibit it elsewhere. This I will not do. I have always exercised my right to preach the Gospel whenever and wherever called. And I expect to do so in the future. John Bunyan lay in Bedford jail for twelve years for preaching the Gospel. The king of England offered him his liberty many times if he would only promise not to preach. But he spurned the offer. I would sooner rot in this prison than go out on such terms. This is my position.’” To this recital of actions under the Boston city ordinance, Mr. Foster says:— “This is no longer a local issue. It is not a Boston question simply, nor even a Massachusetts question, but a United States question. The government of the city, state, and nation is committed against the free public preaching of the Gospel, and their authority is behind this ordinance.” As a conclusion he says, “This is only one symptom of the deadly disease of secularism which threatens the life of this nation.” This conclusion is his great mistake. As a matter of fact, it is “only one symptom of the deadly disease of Church-and-State union which threatens the life” of all civil and religious liberty in this nation. The other “symptom” is the other extreme, namely, the control of legislation by the professed advocates of the Gospel. Several of the States can furnish a far more extensive list of persecutions from the enforcement of laws compelling the observance of so-called Christian institutions. And Mr. Foster and the Christian Statesman, and their National Reform combination, are doing all in their power to put into working order the same backing for this feature of the Church-and-State evil that is now so potent for the Boston ordinance. History gives us views of practical Church-and-State union with the State as the dominant factor, and also with the church as the ruling element. Religious persecution has ever been a prominent result of either system, but the church has generally proved the more intolerant master. Therefore, while we can not overestimate the importance of the question at the head of this article, or the array of evidence presented in urging that importance, we should not fail to couple with it the query:— 2. Shall the free public practise of the Gospel be prohibited in any State of this nation? If half the avowed objects of the National Reform Association, the Christian Citizenship League, etc., etc., should become crystallized into law, such acts as this Boston ordinance—much as it is liable to abuse—would dwindle into comparatively tame affairs as far as checking the real freedom of the Gospel is concerned. The Gospel of Jesus Christ includes the right to keep the commandments of God. The acceptance of the Gospel implies the acceptance and the observance of “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Those who do so are denominated “saints.” Rev. 14:12. The commandment of God says: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” This commandment of God which enjoins the observance of the seventh day, also grants the privilege of doing our own work on six days of the week. Such practise is Gospel practise, yet the entire National Reform coterie are using every possible effort to secure and enforce stringent laws to stop men from working on the first day of the week according to this commandment, and according to the example and practise of the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles. It is proper to insist that, while professed Christian men are pleading for the free public preaching of the Gospel, they should keep their heel off the free public practise of its precepts and privileges. W. N. G.