BEARING FALSE WITNESS by C. P. B.

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Sep 23, 1889

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 15, No. 37.

BEARING FALSE WITNESS.

By C. P. B.

REV. M. A. GAULT, one of the district secretaries of the National Reform Association, and a zealous advocate of a National Sunday law, has an article in the Christian Statesman of August 22, in which he either ignorantly or maliciously bears false witness against some whom he is pleased to denominate "Saturdarians." He says:—

"In every town I have visited I find these people have canvassed the ground thoroughly for signatures against the Sabbath Rest petition, representing that there is a movement on foot to amend the Constitution of the United States, so as to persecute Saturdarians, and compel them to keep the first day. The Valley Falls Lucifer, an infidel anarchistic organ is joining with them in publishing and circulation such petitions. These petitions read as follows: 'We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, do most earnestly PROTEST against all legislation intended, or having the effect, to unite Church and State. We consider the Blair Sunday-Rest Bill and the Blair Educational Bill especially offensive, and dangerous, and should these or other measures embodying the same pernicious principle be presented in this Congress, we sincerely hope your body will promptly and decisively reject them.' At the upper right-hand corner of the petition are these words from the treaty with Tripoli: 'In no sense is the government of the United States founded upon the Christian religion.' On these petitions are sometimes found the names of United Presbyterians and members of other churches whom these people have deceived by false representations."

This paragraph contains two flagrant misstatements; first, in the implied denial that there is a movement on foot to amend the Constitution in the interests of religious legislation, and that it is the purpose of the promoters of that movement to compel all without distinction to keep Sunday. And second, in the matter of the petition itself; conveying as it does the idea that the petition circulated by the seventh-day people is the same as that circulated by the paper to which it refers.

1. Mr. Gault is himself one of the secretaries of an association which has for its object the securing of "such an amendment to the Constitution of

the United States as will declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and so indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land."

This may appear innocent enough to those who have given the subject no thought, and some will no doubt wonder why any Christian should oppose it; but reasons and good ones too are not far to seek. Of course if the Lord Jesus Christ is to be recognized as the ruler of this nation his will must be law; and what National Reformers understand that will to be is thus set forth by Rev. J. M. Foster, another district secretary of the National Reform Association, in the Christian Statesman of February 21, 1884. He thus enumerates the "duties which the reigning Mediator [Christ] requires of nations":—

"(1) A constitutional recognition of himself as king of nations. . . . (2) A constitutional recognition of their duty as a divinely appointed keeper of the moral law. . . . (3) A constitutional provision of moral and religious qualifications for their officers. . . . (4) An acknowledgement and exemplification of the duty of national covenanting with him. . . . (5) An acknowledgment and performance of the nation's duty to guard and protect the church—by suppressing all public violation of the moral law; by maintaining a system of public schools, indoctrinating their youth in morality and virtue; by exempting church property from taxation; and by providing her funds out of the public treasury for carrying on her aggressive work at home and in the foreign field."

If this would not be a union of church and State, we are free to confess that we do not know what would constitute such a union. But, as before remarked, to those who have not considered the subject all these things may appear harmless or even desirable, but a moment's careful thought will satisfy anyone that what the National Reformers demand is nothing less than a union of Church and State, a union which would make it necessary for Congress or for the courts, or for both, to decide what the moral law is, and what constitutes violations of it, as well as a host of other questions of a like nature.

The moral law is the ten commandments, and Mr. Foster and his co-laborers insist that the fourth precept of that law forbids Sunday work. They will not, we opine, deny that they wish to enforce upon all outward obedience to the law of God, as they understand it. Is there not then a movement on foot to compel all, "Saturdarians" as well as others, to keep Sunday? There certainly is, and Mr. Gault is one of the prime movers in that movement.

But it is not alone in the matter of Sunday keeping that these National Reformers propose to interfere between the individual and his God. A vice-president of their association has said:—

"We want State and religion—and we are going to have it. It shall be that so far as the affairs of State require religion, it shall be revealed religion, the religion of Jesus Christ. The Christian oath and Christian morality shall have in this land 'an undeniable legal basis.' We use the word religion in its proper sense, as meaning a man's personal relation of faith and obedience to God."—Dr. Edwards, Minutes N. Y. Convention, 1873, p. 60.

If this means anything it means that they demand laws that shall regulate "a man's personal relation of faith and obedience to God." And that not as the State might decide but as the National Reformers themselves shall decide. The Christian Statesman of February 21, 1884, says:—

"The State and its sphere exist for the sake of and to serve the interests of the church;" and "we will not allow the civil government to decide between the churches and to ordain church doctrines, ordinances, and laws."

Certainly not; the churches would do as they did in the days of Constantine, decide all questions of morality and religion, and then the government would enforce the law according to their decision. Those who circulate petitions against Sunday legislation and all kindred measures do well to say that the logical outcome of the National Reform movement—of which the Sunday-law movement is part and parcel—can be nothing short of laws which will oppress not only "Saturdarians," as Mr. Gault contemptuously terms them, but also all who will not bow in matters of conscience to the dictates of those who happen to be in power.

2. The petition circulated by Lucifer is not the same as that circulated by those whom Mr. Gault calls "Saturdarians." The latter petition is as follows:—

"THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION MUST BE PRESERVED."

"Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience."—George Washington.

"Religion is not the purview of human government. Religion is essentially distinct from government and exempt from its cognizance. A connection between them is injurious to both."—James Madison.

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the State and the Church forever separate."—U. S. Grant.

"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."—U. S. Constitution.

"My kingdom is not of this world." "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's."—Jesus Christ.

To the Honorable, the Senate of the United States:

We, the undersigned, adult residents of the United States, 21 years of age or more, hereby respectfully, but earnestly, petition your Honorable Body not to pass any bill in regard to the observance of the Sabbath, or Lord's day, or any other religious or ecclesiastical institution or rite; nor to favor in any way the adoption of any resolution for the amendment of the National Constitution that would in any way tend, either directly or indirectly, to give preference to the principles of any religion or of any religious body above another, or that will in any way sanction legislation upon the subject of religion; but that the total separation between Religion and State, assured by the National Constitution as it now is, may forever remain as our fathers established it.

It will be observed that this petition makes no mention of any particular bill, but deals wholly with principles. In this respect it differs from the one quoted by Mr. Gault, as it does also in several other points, notably in the quotations by which it is prefaced. Mr. Gault should become better informed relative to the opposition to his work before he attempts to instruct others in regard to it. C. P. B.