TWO PRINCIPLES—TWO PARTIES.
By M. C. Wilcox
THE National Reformers in their efforts to place "all Christian laws, institutions, and usages on an undeniable legal basis," are, whether they realize it or not, working upon a purely selfish principle. Their demands, if enacted into laws, would grant liberty to those in harmony with the demands, but bondage and hardship to everyone that such laws would condemn as a criminal, simply because he does not worship God as National Reformers think he ought, and does have conscientious convictions of his own, to which he is bound to give adherence. The American Sabbath Union and those associated with them are supporting that which will logically and inevitably result in the same thing—persecution for conscience' sake, or unjust prosecution. It will result in freedom and exaltation to one class, those who sincerely or hypocritically give support to Sunday, but bondage and degradation to those who may religiously and sincerely oppose it. It will readily be seen that should such a law be enacted, the time-serving and hypocritical would outwardly favor it, and thereby be exalted, while the sincere and conscientious who opposed the law from motives of duty, would by the law be correspondingly abased. The above is one side, one principle, one party, to the demands for religious legislation now before this country. The friends of religious liberty and equal rights are working, not for liberty for themselves alone, they are working for liberty for all. Their bitterest opposer would enjoy that liberty equally with themselves. They demand that others shall be granted all that they themselves ask, the privilege of worshiping or not worshiping God, according to the dictates of their own conscience and their understanding of his will. This privilege of worshiping or not worshiping they do not understand includes incivility to their fellow-men. The life, property, reputation, and chastity of all, so far as the agis of law can protect, should be protected. The friends of religious liberty and equal rights not only believe in the right to think and act for themselves (always in the bounds of proper civility, of course), but they demand the right of the other party to think and act for themselves on the same basis. This is the other side, the other principle, the other party to the demands for religious legislation now before this country. Which is the better principle, that which does no one any wrong, but grants to all equal rights, or that principle which exalts one class at the expense of another? By which principle will the greater good to the greater number be conserved? Which is the better and more Christian principle? Which party is engaged in the nobler work? Which is the more worthy of Him who said, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them"? Under which principle, in which party, will you, reader, be found? M. C. W.