Moral Suasion Versus Sunday-Law Enforcement
Those Chicago ministers who are grieved because men will drink Sunday, and because the mayor whom they helped to elect will not prevent their doing so, might read with profit the remarks of Elder Waggoner at the convention of the Seventh-day Adventists at Bloomington early this week. Said he:— “If men can be brought to the observance of Sunday by persuasion, by preaching and writing, that is right, but to enforce it by law is destroying the purpose of evangelical work and making hypocrisy compulsory. When the law of Sunday rest is on the statute books and enforced it will not result in bringing people into the churches but will send them to find recreation and amusement elsewhere.” In other words, that which some of the short-sighted preachers demand that Mr. Cregier shall do for them, is something they should do for themselves. They want to leave their pulpits and let him take their places and do missionary work for them, backed by the cudgels of his police. They will accomplish more if they take Elder Waggoner’s, and follow Brother Murphy’s, example and try a little moral suasion. St. Paul did not ask Felix to detail a few Roman centurions with swords and spears to help him in his work, but he went up and down preaching mightily, and made many converts. He did not sit still and wait for men to come to him to be convinced, but he went after them. He did not depend on militant coercion to make men good and to refrain from an indulgence of appetite.—Chicago Tribune, Sept. 12, 1889. The Petition and the Inquisition.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE supplement to the March monthly document of the American Sabbath Union was devoted to a statement of how the friends of the Sunday might co-operate with the union. Following an extract from the constitution, which states that the object of the union is “to preserve the Christian Sabbath as a day of rest and worship,” there was an earnest appeal to every individual to push the petitions for a Sunday law, making not the least abatement because Congress had adjourned. The following form of petition was suggested:— “The undersigned organizations and adult residents of the United States, twenty-one years of age or more, earnestly petition you to pass a bill forbidding in the government’s mail and military service and in interstate commerce, and in the District of Columbia and the Territories, all Sunday traffic and work, except works of necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week by abstaining from labor and business, as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.” We claim that this petition alone furnishes ample proof that the American Sabbath Union contemplates a union of Church and State in the fullest sense, and is providing—unconsciously it may be, but none the less surely—for the establishment of the Inquisition. Strange as it may seem to some, we find the strongest proof of this in the proposed exemption of those that observe another day. The workers for a Sunday law lay a great deal of stress on the fact that they make such an exception. In his speech before the Senate Committee, Mr. Crafts spoke of the exception that is made to the Seventh-day Baptists by the laws of Rhode Island, allowing them to carry on public industries on the first day of the week, and said that “the tendency of Legislatures and executive officers towards those who claim to keep a Saturday Sabbath is to over-leniency rather than over-strictness.” In the same hearing Mrs. Bateham spoke of the exemption that was asked for in the petition, stating that they would like to exempt Seventh-day keepers from the penalties of the law for which they asked, providing it could be done, but that if such an exemption would work against the general enforcement of the law then they did not wish it. These statements show that they simply regard themselves as making a great concession when they do not persecute people who rest upon Saturday. Dr. Bothwell, of Oakland, Cal., stated their feeling very well when he said: “Most of the States make provision for the exercise of the peculiar tenets of belief which are entertained by the Adventists. They can worship on Saturday, and call it the Sabbath, if they choose; but there let their privileges end. Instead of thankfully making use of concessions granted them, and then going off quietly and attending to their own business, as they ought, they start out making unholy alliances that they may defeat the purposes of their benefactors.” With these statements compare the following from the first chapter of Dr. Schaff’s work on “The Progress of Religious Freedom, as Shown in the History of Toleration Acts.” Says he:— “An edict or act of toleration is a grant of the civil government, which authorizes religious societies dissenting from the State religion to worship according to the dictates of conscience without liability to persecution. Such an edict always presupposes a religion established by law and supported by the State, and the right of the State to control public worship. Toleration may proceed from necessity, or from prudence, or from indifference, or from liberality and an enlarged view of truth and right. It may be extended or withdrawn by the government; but it is usually the entering wedge for religious liberty and legal equality. “There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. The one is a concession, the other a right; the one is a matter of expediency, the other a principle; the one is a gift of man, the other a gift of God. “Toleration implies more or less censure or disapproval. We tolerate or endure what we dislike or cannot prevent. The most despotic governments are tolerant towards subjects who are too numerous or too useful to be killed or exiled. Russia tolerates Romanists, Protestants, Jews, and Mohammedans; Turkey tolerates ‘Christian dogs,’ and likes them to prey upon each other; but woe to him in either country who apostatizes from the State religion, or attempts to induce any member of the same to apostasy. Toleration is first sought and granted as a favor, then demanded and conceded as a right, and at last spurned as an insult. In a free country nobody wants to be tolerated for his religious opinions or sacred convictions. “Religious liberty is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable right of every man. It is founded on the sacredness of conscience, which is the voice of God in man, and above the reach and control of human authority. There is a law above all human laws. It is written, not on parchment and tables of stone, but on the heart of man by the finger of God. It is that law which commands with the categorical imperative, and which filled the philosopher Kant with ever-growing reverence and awe. ‘We must obey God more than man.’ He and he alone is the Author and Lord of conscience, and no power on earth has a right to interpose itself between them. ‘Every man stands or falls to his own Lord.’ Liberty of conscience requires liberty of worship as its manifestation. To grant the former and to deny the latter is to imprison conscience and to promote hypocrisy or infidelity. Religion is in its nature voluntary, and ceases to be religion in proportion as it is forced. God wants free worshipers, and no others. “Toleration is an intermediate state between religious persecution and religious liberty. Persecution306results from the union of Church and State; toleration, from a relaxation of that union; full religious liberty and legal equality require a peaceful separation of the spiritual and secular powers.” Note particularly what he says of toleration, that it is an intermediate state between religious persecution and religious liberty. He says also that it is usually “the entering wedge for religious liberty and legal equality.” This is true, providing it has been preceded by despotic intolerance. If a government has rigidly persecuted everyone who dissents from the established religion, then an act of toleration would be the entering wedge toward religious liberty—a step toward freedom; but if perfect liberty and equality have been enjoyed by the citizens of a government, then an act of toleration would be a long stride toward the taking away of religious freedom. For an act of toleration, as Dr. Schaff truly says, “Always presupposes a religion established by law and supported by the State, and the right of the State to control public worship.” The very fact of exemptions being thought of in a law—the use of the word concession and toleration—shows the existence of a despotic law; so that the more the Sunday-law advocates talk about concessions, the more they boast of their leniency, the more they press their petition for a Sunday law which shall exempt those who religiously and regularly observe another day,—the more they proclaim the fact that they are working for a State religion. Now, whenever a religion, or any form of religion, is established by the State, the Inquisition and persecution must inevitably follow. For in such a case an offense against the established religion is an offense against the State; and of course the State is bound to punish all who violate its laws. But punishment by the State for differences of opinion, or of acts in matters of religion, is persecution. Note particularly the petition which we quoted. It provides for the exemption of those who “religiously and regularly” observe another day of the week. How, in the face of this, it is possible for the framers and advocates of that petition to claim that they are not working for a State religion, it is impossible for us to conceive. That petition lays the foundation for the Inquisition; and if a law should be passed in harmony with it, the Inquisition would have to be established. How can the State tell who do and who do not religiously observe another day? Anyone can see that the petition plans for the State to inquire, not simply into a man’s religious or irreligious acts, but into the motives of his acts. Of course it is well understood that under all circumstances there are people who have a form of religion, people who do certain things professedly in the name of religion, yet from selfish motives. Now if a law is passed in accordance with this petition, the State through its officers would be obliged to inquire into the motives which prompt a man’s rest upon Saturday. No individual will have any guarantee that he will remain unmolested for a week. He may be brought up at any time at the instigation of any bigot or any person who has a fancied grudge towards him, and put under examination as to whether or not he observes another day from religious motives. And the worst of it all will be that in such examination his own testimony will avail nothing. Of course those who do observe the day religiously would say so; and any who are not conscientious in their observance of the day would, in order to escape the penalty, declare that they observed it religiously. And so whether or not a person were cleared would depend upon the testimony of men who might have bitter prejudice toward him. We believe that every thoughtful, candid individual can see that to work for this petition is to work directly for as wicked a persecution as ever existed on earth. Let those who see this point use all their energy in setting the light clearly before others, in order that they may not be deceived by the specious arguments of those who are working for the Sunday law. To every individual that petition will be presented, and many will be misled by its outward pretention to justice and of caring for the rights of a minority, unaware that in this very concession is the strongest proof of the wicked character of the proposed law. E. J. W. Church Allegiance Versus State Allegiance
By The Eye
THE Catholic World gives the exact situation in a nutshell. It says: “We are purely and simply Catholic, and profess an unreserved allegiance to the church, which takes precedence of, and gives the rule to, our allegiance to the State.” And yet we have acquaintances who became exceedingly angry when in argument they were “cornered” by the statement that no true Catholic can be a good American citizen.—The Eye. Sunday Legislation Carried to Its Conclusion
IT is stated that in Servia a law has been passed requiring all shops and places of business to be closed, not only on Sunday, but on all the holy days of the church as well. All told, the number is 180. The law is rigidly enforced. A shop keeper who supplied a customer with a little rice on one of the interdicted days, was recently fined 100 franks for his crime. But this is only Sunday legislation carried to its legitimate conclusion. If the State has a right to say that business shall be suspended on Sunday, it has the same right to say that it shall be suspended on other so-called holy days.—Signs of the Times. The Edmunds Resolution.
By A. T. J.
THE SENTINEL has said considerable during the past year about the proposed amendment to the national Constitution establishing instruction in the principles of the Christian religion in all the public schools in the nation. The last few numbers have contained an argument made by one of the editors of the SENTINEL before the Committee on Education and Labor in opposition to that resolution. When the next Congress shall assemble, there will be a powerful effort made to secure the introduction of a resolution embodying the doctrines proposed in that, but in what shape the matter will be presented, it is of course impossible in advance to tell. The forces are being rallied, the different views are being brought together as much as possible, and the people cannot be too wide-awake nor too diligently engaged in the study of the subject, nor can there be too prompt action in opposing the movement. The Blair resolution is not the only one that is advocated. There is another called the “Edmunds Resolution,” so called because it was framed and presented by Senator Edmunds, of Vermont. The history of the Edmunds resolution is this, to begin at the beginning of the subject: April 19, 1870, Hon. S. S. Burdette, of Missouri, proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution upon this subject, reading as follows:—
“SECTION 1. No State or municipal corporation within any State of the United States shall levy or collect any tax for the support or aid of any sectarian, denominational, or religious school or educational establishment; nor shall the legislature of any State, or the corporate authorities of any municipality within any State, appropriate any money or make any donation from the public fund or property of such State or municipality for the support or aid of any sectarian, religious, or denominational schools or educational establishments.
“SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” It will be seen at a glance that this only prohibits State aid to denominational or religious schools or establishments. It does not prohibit sectarian, religious, or denominational instruction in the public schools. It thus missed the mark so widely that it seems not to have been taken any notice of after its introduction. It was not long, however, before another step was taken. December 19, 1871, Hon. William M. Stewart, United States senator from Nevada, proposed an amendment to the national Constitution, reading as follows:—
“SECTION 1. There shall be maintained in each State and Territory a system of free common schools, but neither the United States nor any State, Territory, county, or municipal corporation, shall aid in the support of any schools wherein the peculiar tenets of any denomination are taught. “SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” This proposition seems to have excited some public discussion. It was strongly disapproved by many on the ground that such a measure was “both unnecessary and misleading”—unnecessary because no danger could arise in any State from such action; and mischievous because it would only tend to provoke a controversy which was uncalled for. Nothing seems to have come of Mr. Stewart’s proposition except the discussion referred to. Nothing more was done for four years. Then, however, December 14, 1875, Hon. James G. Blaine, then a member of the House of Representatives, proposed an amendment, as follows: “No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or land so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.” August 4, 1876, Mr. Blaine’s resolution was reported back from the Judiciary Committee with two slight additions, one, of the words “or denomination” following the word “sect” in the second clause, and the other a sentence at the end, saying, “This article shall not vest, enlarge, or diminish legislative power in Congress.” It will be seen that Mr. Blaine’s resolution goes a step further than either of the ones which preceded it, in that it embodies in its first clause the substance of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting any State making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As for the rest of his resolution, it is in substance the same as the other two, simply saying that no public money raised by taxation or derived from public funds for the support of public schools should ever be under the control of any religious sect or divided amongst religious sects or denominations. It does not prohibit the teaching of religion in the public schools, nor does it prohibit the use of public money for the support of religious teaching in the public schools. Therefore, as for any real value in that resolution, there was none except in its first clause. Yet, it was adopted by the House of Representatives after brief debate, by vote of 180 yeas to 7 nays, with 98 not voting. The resolution then went to the Senate, and, August 7, was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, with several substitutes which had been offered for it. Two days later, August 9, Senator Edmunds, of the Judiciary Committee, reported back the joint resolution with an amendment which was in fact a substitute, reading as follows:— “No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under any State. No public property, and no public revenue of, nor any loan of credit by or under, the authority of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or municipal corporation, shall be appropriated to, or made, or used for, the support of any school, educational or other institution, under the control of any religious, or anti-religious, organization, or wherein the particular creed or tenets of any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination, shall be taught. And no such particular creed or tenet shall be read or taught in any school or institution supported in whole or in part by such revenue307or loan of credit; and no such appropriation or loan of credit shall be made to any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination, or promote its interests or tenets. This article shall not be construed to prohibit the reading of the Bible in any school or institution; and it shall not have the effect to impair rights of property already vested.
“SEC. 2. Congress shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to provide for the prevention or punishment of violations of this article.” August 11 this substitute was accepted for the House resolution by a vote of 27 to 15. August 14 the substitute was brought to vote upon its adoption. The vote stood 28 yeas to 16 nays. But as it requires a majority of two-thirds to adopt such a resolution, and as the vote fell two short of being two-thirds, the resolution was lost. This is the Edmunds amendment, and this is its history. And that was the last effort to amend the Constitution until May 25, 1888, when Senator Blair introduced his. And, as stated at the beginning, the Edmunds amendment is being advocated for introduction at the next Congress as well as the Blair amendment. We have not space here to discuss the merit of the Edmunds resolution; we can only say now that it is an excellent illustration of how not to say it, and leave the fuller discussion of it until our next. An Unimpassioned Statement of the Case.
We commend to our readers the following candid and unimpassioned statement, by the Signs of the Times, of the reasons why it cannot co-operate with the Prohibition party and with the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. The reasons given are sound, and the second prevails with thousands of honest people in all denominations and in all parts of the country. The Signs says:— This paper has from its very inception to the present time been an advocate of the prohibition of the liquor traffic; and, knowing this, some of our friends are unable to understand why we do not support the Prohibition party; and some have gone so far as to deny that we are in favor of prohibition at all because we do not co-operate in all things with those who have taken that name. We wish now to state our position so plainly that none can fail to understand it. There are two reasons why we cannot and do not support the Prohibition party, though we advocate prohibition. The first of these reasons is, the Signs of the Times is not a political nor a party paper. We advocate only principles; the support of men and measures we, from the very nature of the case, leave to papers published for that purpose. In this we do not differ materially from the majority of religious papers. Our second reason for not supporting the Prohibition party is that, whereas it advocates prohibition, in which we believe, it also advocates some things in which we do not believe. A single plank from the platform recently adopted by some six hundred delegates of the party assembled in convention in Pittsburg, Pa., will serve as an illustration. The plank is as follows:— “Third—The Sabbath must be preserved by the due enforcement of existing laws and the speedy enactment of such additional legislation as may be necessary to insure its due observance.” We cannot conscientiously give our support, nor even our tacit consent, to this plank. The Sabbath is a religious institution, and its observance is an act of worship; its legal enforcement is, therefore, the legal enforcement of religion, and that is foreign alike to the spirit of real Christianity and to our free institutions. In all matters of religion man is responsible alone to his God, and when the State attempts to interfere in any way in such matters it usurps the place and prerogatives of God. The tendency of Sunday laws is to destroy that sense of personal responsibility to God which is the basis of all true religion, and in the very nature of the case, under them, men learn to look not to God to know their duty toward him, but to the State. Again, Sabbath laws are unjust. All do not regard the same day as sacred, nor do all agree upon the degree of sacredness which attaches to any particular day. It is manifestly unjust to compel the man who has kept Saturday, as many do, to keep Sunday also. To say the very least, the fourth commandment gives permission to all to labor six days, and certainly the man who has observed the seventh day according to the plain letter of that commandment has a divine right to work on the other six days; and not only so but he has a right to do any sort of work, or to follow any sort of business, which it would be right and proper for a Christian to do or follow upon any other day, always remembering the golden rule, to do as he would be done by. We should always be considerate of the rights and feelings of others, but this is just as obligatory upon one as upon another. But obedience to the golden rule would defeat all Sunday laws, unless it might be useless provision requiring those to rest upon that day who want to do so. Certainly it is not doing to others as we would have them do to us, to require them to observe religious institutions in which they have no faith. If Christians, because they happen to be in the majority, have a right to require unbelievers to act one day in the week as though they believed, it follows that were the majority on the other side the unbelievers would have the right to require Christians to act, at least occasionally, as though they were infidels. But God has never given any such authority to anybody. The words of our Saviour, “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” have forever separated civil and religious duties and left the State without the vestige of an excuse for interfering in matters of religion. The Sunday law of Pennsylvania is particularly objectionable because that under it conscientious Christian men have been, and may still be, fined and imprisoned for doing ordinary labor on the first day of the week after having religiously kept the seventh day. But the Prohibition party in that State not only favors the strict enforcement of that law, but demands the passage of still more stringent laws. Such a demand is neither Christian nor patriotic, and we certainly cannot join in it nor give it our sanction in any way. But even if the law did exempt from its provisions those who observe the day specified in the fourth commandment, we could not indorse it nor assent that it was right. It is a question which the State has no right to touch, nor can it do so without establishing a precedent most dangerous to religious liberty and to freedom of conscience. We have no quarrel with the Prohibition party so long as it confines itself to its legitimate work, and we stand aloof from that party, not that we love prohibition less, but that we love God and freedom to worship him according to the dictates of our own consciences more. God Has Drawn the Line.
By H. H. Fisher
SECRETARIES GAULT and GRAY, of the American Sabbath Union, do not believe that as a political maxim, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This statement is quoted and indorsed by the Christian Statesman, official organ of the National Reform Association. We may ask, From whom do these gentlemen believe that these powers are derived? They answer, “From God.” Very well; then they must be believers in the divine right of kings and rulers,308and that whosoever rebels against governmental authority, rebels against God. If this is true, then they must believe that our government has no right to exist, for it is the outcome of a rebellion. But say they, We do not believe that the powers that be are ordained of God to such an extent that men ought never to rebel against them; but that when the power of the government is exerted unjustly men have the right to rebel. When they make this admission they surrender the whole ground, for if God has not delegated to the rulers of earth absolute power over their subjects in all things, then he has drawn the line somewhere. This he has done in the words, “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s,” thus reserving unto himself the things pertaining to him, and delegating to man the regulation of those things pertaining to man. Papal Protestantism:
By Alonzo T. Jones
The question of the Bible in the public schools has lately caused considerable discussion in Detroit. One preacher of that city, Rev. James M. Henderson, says on the subject:— “I am in favor of introducing the Bible into the public schools. The Bible, as the standard of Protestant religion, should be retained, and Catholics whose children attend our public schools should accept our Protestant Bible. I do not believe that any Catholic is ever willing to have as the basis of the religious training of his children the Protestant Bible, but the Catholic children usually attend Catholic schools. Parents of children who do attend our public schools should accept our Protestant Bible without sectarian comment.” This shows the real purpose of the effort being made all over the land, and even in the religious attack made upon the national Constitution. It is simply to have the State establish the Protestant religion and enforce upon everybody the dictates of the Protestant church rulers. Another preacher, Rev. Joseph W. Blanchard, sets forth the same doctrine in these words:— “The public school should suit the majority, as this is a country where majorities rule. The majority of the people of this country are Christians, therefore the majority should rule. There ought to be Christian teaching in the public schools. The Bible should be read without note or comment, and the simple fundamental principles of Christianity taught.” It is true that he uses only the terms Christian and Christianity to describe the religious teaching which they propose to force upon others; but he means only Protestant Christian teaching and Protestant Christianity. But it might not prove so in the end. Protestants might be in the minority in a little while, then it is probable that the Roman Catholics would be in the majority—it is so already in about a dozen of the States—and if the Catholic majority should force the reading of the Catholic Bible and Catholic instruction upon all the rest of the people at the public expense, that would probably put another face upon the matter. If some way could be invented by which these particular individuals could be compelled to take some of their own medicine administered by Roman Catholics, it would be an excellent thing. It might be possible in that way to reach their reason. Rev. F. Grenell sees the matter in a much better light, and says:— “Right is not decided by majorities, even though the majority be right.” Yet how fast this wicked principle of majority rule in matters of religion and the conscience, is growing. But this question “is not a question of majorities or minorities, for if the conscience of the majority is to be the standard, then there is no such thing as right of conscience at all. It is against the predominance and power of majorities that the rights of conscience are protected, and have need to be.” And those who call themselves Protestants are not the only people in the world who have a conscience. National Reform Infidelity.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
We have just chanced to pick up an old copy of the Christian Statesman, the issue of July 7, 1887, in which there is an article entitled, “The Bible in our Public Schools.” This article is referred to editorially as “a masterly article;” and therefore whatever statements are contained in it may be considered as voicing the views of the Statesman and of its party. We have not time or space at present to review the article as a whole, but simply call attention to the following paragraph, under the sub-head, “Historical Value of the Bible.” The writer says:— “There is another aspect of this subject which seems to be generally overlooked, viz., Is the use of the Bible in our public schools entirely and exclusively a religious question?—I think not. Ought the Bible to be used as a text-book?—Most decidedly I think it ought, and for these reasons: Viewed simply as literature the Bible is a collection of valuable ancient manuscripts coming to us from a most respectable source—natural and national history, poetry, biography, axiomatic philosophy, etc. Are not the histories of the ancient giants and Noah, of Nimrod and of Babel, of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Daniel as good secular history as anything collected from ancient sources by Rollin, Rawlinson, and Layard? Is not the poetry of the book of Psalms, and Job, and Isaiah, quite as good as that contained in the works written by Homer and Virgil? Are not the biblical narratives associated with Nineveh, Damascus, and Memphis, with Hebron and Jerusalem, quite as valuable secular truth as anything recorded elsewhere about Sparta or Athens, Rome or Carthage? The earthquake of Lisbon was not a more real and historical event than that previous earthquake by which Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were engulfed; the volcanic overthrow of Sodom in the vale of Siddim is quite as good secular history as is the overthrow of Pompeii in the neighborhood of Mount Vesuvius; Robin Hood and his “merrie men” outlawed in the forest, or Rob Roy in his Highland cave with his clansman, is a story not a whit more natural or secular than David in the cave of Adullam; the ethics of Solomon are quite as valuable in a purely terrestrial sense as anything that comes to us from Socrates or Plato; the voyages of Solomon’s fleet, and the voyage of Paul from Cæsarea to Rome by way of Malta, were events quite as instructive from a secular point of view as the voyages of the ancient Argonauts, Carthaginians, or Phoenicians, or of the Puritan Pilgrims across the Atlantic. The God of Sinai is quite as respectable (and probably quite as real) as any deity of Olympus; and the religious ceremonies of the tabernacle in the wilderness, as the temple on Moriah, form as real history and quite as good secular morals as anything religious emanating either from Egypt or from regions called classic. All the biblical narratives (I wish to emphasize) are genuine secular history in these senses, viz., the events occurred on earth; the actors and writers were real men and women; those events, those facts; those literary productions, those religious ceremonies, occurred during certain secular periods within certain geographical limits, and are not to be relegated to the transcendental and prehistoric regions of the legendary and mythical. Nay, I fearlessly assert that the story of Jesus of Nazareth is, in the proper sense, as good secular history as that of Julius Cæsar, or Ghengis Khan, or Napoleon; and the apostolic narrative called the Acts, as any extant chronicles of the Heptarchy or history of the Plantagenets.” Just think of it, the Bible placed on a level with secular history, and declared to be secular history! the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah compared to the overthrow of Pompeii! Robin Hood compared with David! the Proverbs of Solomon compared with the sayings of Socrates and Plato! and to crown all, the blasphemous comparison of the God of Sinai with the deities of Olympus, and he placed on a level with them! and the incomparable story of Jesus of Nazareth compared with Julius Cæsar, Ghengis Khan, and Napoleon! We say that such comparisons are simply blasphemous; and no one who has any respect for sacred history will dissent from the statement. There is no likeness whatever between the biblical narrative and the tales of secular writers, except that they were real occurrences. But this point we would emphasize, and that is that, apart from the religious features of it, the historical narrative has no point whatever. The simplest historical statements of the Old Testament were written by inspiration of God as much as the highest flights of Isaiah or Ezekiel. They are written for the spiritual encouragement and the moral upbuilding of those who read them; and they derive their whole force and importance from their religious character. To teach them as mere secular history is to lose sight of the real object of them. Nay, more, it is to lower the Bible to the level of human productions. We know that a great deal is said about the necessity of a knowledge of Old Testament history in order to a liberal education. But we affirm that one might as well not study the Bible at all as to study it from a mere secular standpoint. The Jewish nation was not a vast one; they were, as Moses said, “the fewest of all people.” Their territory was exceedingly small, and their place in the history of the world is exceedingly insignificant, if we separate it from the vital religious truths that their history is designed to convey. Looking at it from the standpoint of inspiration and religion, their history is the most important of all history; and the Bible narrative is the key which unlocks all history; and the Bible is the point from which the study of all history should begin; but divorced from religion it means nothing whatever. It would be utterly impossible for anyone to bring a stronger charge against the movement to teach the Bible in the public schools than is afforded in the paragraph above quoted. The advocates of that movement may style its opposers infidels if they choose; but in the face of such a lowering of the divine word, and of such secularizing on the Bible, we think that all thoughtful Christians will unite with us in saying that the movement is an infidel movement from beginning to end; and that the success of the National Reform movement to have the Bible taught in the public schools would mark the inauguration of a period of infidelity that could find no parallel outside of France in the time of the revolution. In the face of articles that show such an utter ignorance of the true character of the Bible, so light a regard for it as to compare it, not simply with secular history, but with the narratives of fiction, we think we are justified in declaring the so-called National Reform movement to be not Christian, but infidel and atheistic in its tendency. Let the National Reformers clear themselves from this charge if they can. E. J. W.