THE KINGS COUNTY (N. Y.) SABBATH
By C. P. B.
WE have before referred to this association, and shown from the report of the secretary its real object, but perhaps the most interesting part of the proceedings was the address of Col. Elliott F. Shepard, president of the American Sabbath Union. It is well known to all the readers of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES that Mr. Crafts, field secretary of the same association, lays great stress on securing a day of rest to the workingmen, and denies that they are working in the interests of the religious observance of the day, but it seems that Mr. Shepard does not agree with his secretary. In his address he said: "The Sabbath question is to be viewed first from the divine side. . . . Now, what is the law of the Lord respecting the Sabbath day?" He then quoted the fourth commandment, and after making some statements in regard to the change of the day, he continued to argue at length for its religious observance. In this connection he denounced in strong terms the "anti-Sabbath Pope." He did not, however, explain how it comes that the Pope is "anti-Sabbath," in the sense of being opposed to Sunday-keeping. If he will examine Catholic catechisms, he will find that Sunday-keeping is enjoined upon all Catholics; that they are all expected to attend religious services on Sunday, and to spend the rest of the day in reading religious books. That they do not do so is not the fault of the Pope, and it comes with rather bad grace for Mr. Shepard to accuse that dignitary of being opposed to Sunday, when the Pope himself poses as the defender of Sunday, and when the association of which Mr. Shepard is president counts the entire Catholic population of the United States as being petitioners in favor of408the Blair Sunday-Rest bill, which he heartily endorses. But Mr. Shepard not only advocated laws for the religious observance of Sunday, but he went so far as to advocate the legal enforcement of the entire decalogue. He said: "Now let me illustrate for one moment as to the third commandment, 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.'" A great many of the States, he said, had passed laws against blasphemy, and that was all right. "If this principle had been observed," he remarked, "we would never have known or heard of the abominable idolatry in our country known as Mormonism. The very foundation of that religion is, that a man can take the name of God in vain. It soon becomes nothing for him to say the Lord God says through him do so-and-so." Mr. Shepard's idea seems to be that this country should have a law forbidding any to set up the claim of being a prophet, and of saying that the Lord has authorized him to speak in any way. Of course, it is blasphemy for any man to set up a false claim of being divinely inspired. But does Mr. Shepard really think that such claims should be forbidden by law? So it seems from his words. The plan laid down in the Scriptures for determining such claims is, "To the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." There is one feature of Mormonism with which it is certainly right that the civil law should deal, namely, polygamy. That is not merely a question of religious belief but of civil practice. It is a matter which concerns not simply a single individual who may marry more than one wife, or even the several wives which one man may have, but it goes farther than that, and it is proper that the Government should forbid it, not because it is immoral, but because it is uncivil. But to pass a law that would cause the courts to say that certain language is blasphemous, or that any man is a blasphemer because he professes to speak in the name of the Lord, would be simply to establish in this country a religious despotism. However, Mr. Shepard is consistent in this, that he insists that man has no right to make a difference in the commandments. He says: "The keeping of the ten commandments is simply obeying God, and so, of course, when you break one commandment, you break them all. The ten commandments are like a beautiful prism that reflects the image of the Creator, and when you have broken it, the image and reflection are gone. When the spirit of disobedience has crept in and gone to work, you may break the ninth or seventh, or all the commandments together, just as you please." Mr. Shepard's idea seems to be that it is the prerogative of civil government to require man to keep the law of God, but we would like to know how he would compel men to keep the tenth commandment. It says, "Thou shalt not covet." Or even how he would enforce, by civil law, the sixth or seventh commandments as such. True, we have laws against murder, and against adultery, but the sixth and seventh commandments are vastly more than any civil enactment can possibly be. As magnified by the Saviour, hatred is a violation of the sixth commandment, and lust is a violation of the seventh. Now if a law is going to be enforced by civil government, the man who has murder or lust in his heart must be punished just the same as though he had committed the overt act to which these feelings would naturally lead. But how is any court or jury to determine a man's feelings? They can arrive at it only in one way, namely, by forcing from the individual a confession by means of torture. It may be said that this will never be done. Probably not, but it just shows how impossible it is for men to enforce the decalogue as such. The law of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and can be administered only by Him who reads the heart. And thus again it appears that to carry out the ideas set forth by the speakers in this Kings County convention, would be to establish in this country a religious despotism.