The American Sentinel, The Sentinel of Liberty, Vol. 15, No. 28.
The Decline of Sunday ObservancePage 1
The Decline of Sunday Observance.
By S.
Almost every writer and speaker in behalf of Sunday legislation has something to say about the “increasing desecration of the Lord’s day.” “The Sabbath is imperiled,” we are told, “by a growing tendency to secularize it, to neglect its religious privileges, to substitute the vulgarities of the Sunday press for communion with higher and sweeter themes, to devote its sacred hours to travel, to excursions of pleasure, and to mere social functions.” This is the statement made by Rev. R. F. Sample, a leading Presbyterian; and the like lament is heard everywhere from his contemporaries in the work of Sunday reform. There is no reason to doubt that Sunday desecration is increasing. The statements made by the friends of Sunday upon this point are no doubt substantially true. But those who are calling for Sunday laws as a remedy for the evil, as they view it, entirely miss the lesson that should be learned from it touching the preservation of the Sunday institution. The very fact that public regard for the day is fast being lost, is evidence that it is beyond the power of legislation to stay the decline that has overtaken it. Regard for an institution cannot be put into the484hearts of the people by law. Human statutes and acts of legislatures are powerless to control those influences by which an institution—as the Sunday sabbath—gains or loses in the belief and affections of mankind. Formerly Sunday was much more generally observed than it is to-day, because there was a more general belief in its claims as a sacred day, and a more general regard for it as such; now that belief and regard are on the decline, and no law can save the institution from the resulting disintegration. The only remedy for the situation must be something that will influence the minds and hearts of the people in favor of the claims made for Sunday as a sacred day. How such a remedy can be found, we do not know; indeed, we do not believe it can be found at all. The Scriptures evidently do not afford a foundation for belief in Sunday as against the claims of the seventh day, and while men can reasonably doubt the genuineness of its claims they cannot be expected to have any regard for it beyond that which may arise from purely selfish motives. With the Catholics Sunday rests upon tradition and the authority of the Catholic church, and this is the only stable foundation upon which the institution can be based. Protestants must either go over to this foundation for the day or see it lapse into complete decay and ruin. But if they go over to Rome’s foundation they will be no longer Protestants. Which course will they take? Will they give up Sunday or go back to the ground of tradition and church authority as the basis of religious obligation, which they abandoned at the Reformation? Evidently they must soon do either the one or the other; and meanwhile there is being held out to them the alternative of accepting the claims of the seventh day Sabbath of the fourth commandment, resting upon the word and authority of inspiration alone. Sabbath Keeping Without Force
All men ought to keep the Sabbath, but no man ought to be forced to keep the Sabbath. Religious service must rest wholly upon love, not upon force. The Majority Will in Religion
The “will of the majority” in religion is no more binding upon the minority to-day, and no safer a guide, than it was in the days of Noah, Abraham, or Elijah. Christianity and Politics
Christians cannot possibly be the “salt of the earth” at the ballot box; at such a place a Christian counts for no more than the most ungodly person on earth, since they stand on a perfect equality in the right to vote. One Christian can “chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight”; but not at the polls or the primary. Christianity cannot count in the sphere of politics. The Sabbath and Legislation
The Creator gave the world only one sun and one Sabbath, and it is as possible to create another sun by legislation as another Sabbath, or to maintain one by legislation as to maintain the other. There can be only one day sanctified as the Sabbath in the same week,—only one day set apart from all other days as a day of rest. We must take the Sabbath institution as it comes to us from God’s hands rather than from the legislature. State Protection of Natural Rights
The only protection that is needed from the state is the protection of men in the enjoyment of natural rights. Public Good and Legislation
Because a certain thing may be clearly for the public good, it does not follow that its enforcement should be attempted by law. Most people will admit that the extension of Christianity is clearly for the public good, but few would advocate its promulgation by legislation. It is clearly for the public good that men should regard the laws of health, but here again law is powerless to secure the end desired. And so in a multitude of other cases. “Sunday labor must be stopped,” says “Sunday Reform Leaflets.” “It is undermining our Christian civilization; and, so long as it continues, an immense number will be kept away from religious influences, preparing for that mental and moral state out of which come labor troubles, strikes, and riots; and worse things may be expected under separations from religion.” This is exactly the argument used in favor of Sunday laws in the fourth century. First Sunday work kept the people away from “religious influences,” that is from the churches, therefore work was forbidden. Then the people being idle, they resorted not to the churches, but to the theaters, which kept them “away from religious influences”; therefore the theaters were prohibited on Sunday. The result was that the people all became so “good” that the empire is called even today the “Holy Roman Empire.” Those who refused to be “good” were killed, and this order of things continued for many centuries. It is true that the major portion of that time is known as the “Dark Ages,” but there are a good many people who seem anxious to see the history of the “Holy Roman Empire,” the Inquisition, and the Dark Ages generally, repeated in this land and in the twentieth century, soon to dawn upon the world. A Christian Citizenship Evangelist.
By B.
“The National Christian Citizenship League, moved by profound spiritual passion for the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth, and after prayerful consideration,” says its organ, The Social Forum, “has concluded to add to its other lines, a department of evangelistic work. However much we may realize the inadequacy and deplore the partial failure of present religious effort, we nevertheless know that in the past there has been a deep spiritual fire associated with the old life. Smoldering and dormant it may now be, but as in other times, in response to the soul’s intensest yearnings and man’s supremest need, the breath of God will again fan it into a purifying flame that will sweep over the land, and pride and vanity and the idols of the heart will be dissolved before it like chaff in a furnace. * “We believe that the essential weakness of present-day methods, both in religion and reform, is the failure to address the heart as well as the head. We believe the heart when powerfully appealed to and profoundly stirred will apprehend the right with more unerring accuracy than will the head; that with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and when the emotions are deeply agitated they will overflow, suffuse and compel the assent of the intellect, when confession will be made unto salvation. Believing this, the National Christian Citizenship League propose earnestly to seek a revival of spiritual fervor and power, assured that only through such a revival can Christ’s righteousness be realized, the Christ-life be incarnated in our own and the evils that menace our collective life be abolished.” By “our collective life” the Social Forum means our political life. And this new movement proposes to unite religion and politics, and to appeal to the religious sentiments and feelings of the people to move them to political action. This can mean nothing less than practical union of church and state, first of all in the individual and then in “our collective life.” We are not of those who believe that one can be an honest man in private life and a rogue in public life;485or a saint in the church and a sinner in politics. If one’s religion is worth having it will make him honest wherever he is. But this is quite a different thing from saying that “when the emotions are deeply agitated they will overflow, suffuse and compel the assent of the intellect.” We want no government by camp-meeting or revival methods. Government by “the emotions” “deeply agitated” by fervid appeals to religious sentiment is just what they had in Spain and the Netherlands under the sway of the Inquisition. Another form of it is seen to-day in the Boxer uprising in China; while our American Sunday laws are due to the same cause—deep religious feeling rather than sanctified common sense. The Christian Citizenship League is pursuing either a phantom, or the deamon of church-and-state union. If the first, their efforts must be fruitless of practical results; if the second, their success could bring only wide-spread ruin; first of American liberty and American manhood, and secondly of the Republic itself. Christianity and Politics.
By S.
Pastor Friedrich Naumann, who is a prominent figure in the ranks of practical Christian workers in Germany, has published a book on “Democracy and the Imperial Power,” in which he shows that Christ’s teachings furnish no rule for guidance in politics. Consequently the publication has produced “a deep and disappointing sensation” among those within the circle of his influence, who were looking for an opposite view to be set forth. “The author,” we are told, “has been one of the most active representatives of the Christian Socialist agitation, which has seen in the application of the teachings of Christ to the social and political problems of the day the panacea for all the ills that affect humanity.” Now the former “Christian Socialist” has withdrawn from the position he held as such touching the application of Christ’s teaching to politics, and states the conclusion at which he has arrived, in these words:— “Jesus Christ was not a politician. The attempt has often been made to extract from the never-failing fountain of his Word the rules that should control political thought and action. Protestants, too, have made such attempts, and in former years the author of this book has joined in these efforts. But the result of all these studies has been the conviction that the moral ideas of the Master are of such a general character, being intended for application to all manners and conditions of men, and are so purely ethical and abstract in their nature, that they do not furnish a guide to conduct in specific cases nor answer such questions as, What should be our politics in the period of industrialism, or our attitude toward social democracy, or even toward aristocracy? Jesus thereby does not decrease in value for us; but we are not able to deduce our political tactics from him.”
“Jesus Christ was not a politician”; that states the whole truth of the matter in a nutshell. And because he was not a politician, he did not enter into the arena of political strife, and his words and example furnish no rule by which to guide political activity. And as the life of Christ is Christianity, now as well as nineteen centuries ago, it follows that Christianity knows nothing of politics. The aims of Christianity are not to be attained by political means. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. We commend the results of Pastor Naumann’s study of this subject to all those in this country who are trying to set up the kingdom of God or establish righteousness in the earth through political reform parties or by any political agency. An earnest and candid investigation of the question in the light of the words of Jesus Christ, will, we trust, be the salvation of many from one of the most dangerous of modern delusions. Duty of Civil Magistrates Towards Religion.
By Roger Williams
The civil magistrate either respecteth that religion, and worship which his conscience is persuaded is true, and upon which he ventures his soul, or else that and those which he is persuaded are false. Concerning the first, if that which the magistrate believeth to be true, be true, I say he owes a three-fold duty unto it: First. Approbation and countenance, a reverent esteem and honorable testimony, according to Isaiah xlix, Revelation xxi, with a tender respect of truth and the professors of it. Secondly. Personal submission of his own soul to the power of the Lord Jesus in that spiritual government and kingdom, according to Matthew xviii, I. Cor. v. Thirdly. Protection of such true professors of Christ, whether apart, or met together, as also of their estates, from violence and injury, according to Rom. xiii.436 Now, secondly; if it be a false religion (unto which the civil magistrate dare not adjoin, yet) he owes: First. Permission (for approbation he owes not to what is evil), and this according to Matthew xiii, 30, for public peace and quiet's sake. Secondly. He owes protection to the persons of his subjects (though of a false worship) that no injury be offered either to the persons or goods of any. Rom. xiii.—Roger Williams. Citizenship in the Better Country
By Amos R. Wells
Christians should hold their citizenship on high. A country is not safe till the citizens are seeking the Better Country. The supreme loyalty to one's fatherland is loyalty to one's Father in Heaven. As the spirit of mammon is the ruin of the land; so the spirit of other-worldliness is its salvation. It prevents undue wealth. It checks ambition. It avoids friction between worker and worker. It makes men faithful. It empties saloons and builds up homes.—Amos R. Wells. The Ontario Sunday Law.
By F. D. Starr
As perhaps most of the readers of the Sentinel know, the Ontario Sunday law has been before the Court of Appeals of the Dominion of Canada to test its constitutionality. The most of the time May 22-28 was devoted to the hearing of the case by that court in Osgood Hall, Toronto. Some very interesting facts were brought out during the hearing, and some very strange positions were taken. The question is, whether the provincial government of Ontario has the right to enact a Sunday law, or whether this power rests solely with the Dominion government (of Canada). By the Act of Federation, all criminal laws belong to the Dominion government, and the provinces have no right to make or alter criminal laws. Sunday laws have recently been classed in Nova Scotia as criminal laws. If this decision is correct, then the Sunday laws of the provinces are evidently unconstitutional. So the matter was carried up for a final hearing. The Lord’s Day Alliance made a very strong effort to have the constitutionality of the law established. Two eminent lawyers argued the case for three days before the court in behalf of the Sunday law. The lawyer for the other side of the question used but one half-day. It was very persistently affirmed by the lawyers for the Lord’s Day Alliance that the question is not in any wise a religious one, also that it is not a question of morality. It was stated that the name of the institution as it appears in the law, the Lord’s-Day Act, might give to the matter a religious appearance, but that was misleading. Though the day is called the Lord’s day, yet the law concerning its observance is purely a civil statute, regulating the conduct of men with each other. It was also stated that the violation of the law did not embrace anything immoral. When asked by the judge how this could be shown, or why the speaker took this position, the reply was “because there is nothing in the violation of the law that affects a man’s conscience.” This is certainly a very interesting statement, and we wish it might be proclaimed in the ears of men everywhere, that there is nothing in the violation of Sunday laws that need disturb any man’s conscience. But this would be strange doctrine for Sunday law advocates across the line from us, surely. But the statement is just as good there as here. Another very interesting position that was taken by the Sunday law advocates was that it would be an impracticable thing to have a national Sunday law, that each province should be allowed to make its own Sunday laws. The argument in favor of this position was that it would not be fair, for illustration, to ask Quebec to conform to the ideas of Ontario people in regard to Sunday observance, that these French speaking people had very different ideas of Sunday observance than we of English extraction have, and they should be allowed to have laws in conformity with their customs and ideas. On the other hand, it would not be right for Quebec to ask Ontario to adopt her ideas of Sunday observance, and that as there are various notions about Sunday observance in the various provinces, therefore each province should be allowed to make its own Sunday laws. This is again very important information for Sunday law advocates everywhere. Hear, all of you. A national Sunday law—the very thing Sunday law agitators are clamoring for—is an impracticable thing. Then, forever abandon the project. Different races and different provinces and states differ in their ideas of Sunday observance, and so it would be unjust to make a law bringing all to a compulsory observance of the same law. But why stop with the State or Province? Suppose in two adjoining counties men differ in their ideas of this matter, why is it any more just to have a Sunday law applying alike to both counties? And further. Suppose that in two adjoining neighborhoods the sentiment is different, yes, suppose two families living side by side differ in their ideas concerning the rest day. Shall we have a law applying alike to both? Provinces are only neighborhoods grown large. The rights of one man are of precisely the same nature as those of a collective body of men. The folly and absurdity of any government, state or nation, presuming to establish a Sunday law was most clearly evident to the attentive listener to the above arguments. Let these two points be remembered, that Sunday observance is not a matter of conscience (of a well-instructed conscience at least), and that the idea of a national Sunday law is a farce, on account of its manifest injustice. F. D. STARR. Lord Minto’s Sunday Conduct
Recently, Lord Minto, Governor-General of Canada, was in Toronto on Sunday. According to newspaper reports, early in the day he attended service at St. James Cathedral, and after that entertained guests at lunch. When the time for Lord Minto’s departure arrived a guard of honor, consisting of the Forty-eighth Highlanders, with their band, escorted the page-break/> the viceregal party to the train, which left Sunday evening for Ottawa. “The circumstance,” it is said, “has caused much pain among the strict ‘Sabbath-loving’ people of Canada. Rev. Dr. Milligan, pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian church, took occasion to administer a rebuke from the pulpit, and in many quarters Lord Minto’s action has been condemned.” The Catholic Standard and Times on the Philippine Situation.
By B.
Mention is made in our “News, Notes and Comment,” of Bishop McFaul’s recent utterance concerning the duty of Catholics to make their influence felt “whenever bigots attempt the invasion of our rights.” Still more recently the Bishop has written to the editor of the Catholic Standard and Times (Philadelphia), saying: “No Catholic political party is intended, neither are we to act as Catholics in obtaining our rights, but as American citizens—and employ the means guaranteed to citizens. Our people are asked to imitate representative non-Catholic laymen, who go before local boards, State Legislatures and the National Congress in behalf of their rights as citizens or for the redress of grievances. * This is a campaign of education—not only for Catholics, but for non-Catholics as well. Bigots have too long dragged our religion into politics for their own selfish ends. We propose to put a stop to this mixing up of our religion with politics, and to prevent discrimination against us as American citizens simply because we are Catholics. It cannot be doubted that the grievances we are suffering at home and in our new possessions would never have occurred, at least they would soon have been removed, if we had made known our sentiments in legitimate channels with that strength of purpose which would have made an impression upon those in authority.” As intimated elsewhere, the Catholics look at such things in a very different light from that in which most Protestants view them. For example, a few years since when the Protestant churches that had been receiving governmental aid for their Indian schools, voluntarily relinquished it, the Catholics refused to do so; and the act passed by Congress at that time, providing that after a certain date no more such appropriations should be made, is one of the “grievances” of which they complain. Taking Bishop McFaul’s letter as a text, the Catholic Standard and Times says: “The present is not a time for irresolution. It is not enough that Catholics consider their position, pass resolutions and speak through the newspapers. They have voices and votes. These they must use with the earnestness of men who know what they are about and determined to carry their resolve. They are American citizens, and they have the same rights under the Constitution as all other classes of citizens. When they see other citizens banding together for the purpose of making an attack on Catholic institutions and Catholic principles and Catholic property, they would not deserve the name of American citizenship to stand idly by while such an outrage on the Constitution was being contrived.” It will be remembered how active certain Catholic prelates were at the conclusion of the Spanish-American war to secure the “rights of the church.” These “rights” had reference of course to the condition of affairs under the church-and-state regime in Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines. Referring to this phase of the question, the paper we quote says: “There is confiscation in the air. Many portents point to an assault upon the property of the religious orders in the Philippines, in breach of the treaty with Spain.” The Standard and Times then quotes the Brooklyn Eagle, “one of the best informed papers,” which “gives, on the authority of its Washington correspondent, a statement made to him by ‘an Administration official high in authority,’ to this effect”: “The friars are to be gotten out of the Philippines, but at this time it is impossible to say how their expulsion is to be effected. Navy and army officers have reported that much of the trouble and discontent in the islands is the result of the influence of the priests. While we know that this sect has been violently opposed to our government and that efforts were made by its members to aid and encourage the rebellion against the authority of the United States, we regard the friars as more menacing to the interests of the natives than to the United States. The whole subject of their future is to be decided by the Philippine Commission, which has full power to dispose of the matter. Of course, we are being kept advised as to what is being done and the final decision will have approval of the Washington authorities. “Numerous complaints have been received by the American authorities, to the effect that grounds and buildings have been seized in the past by representatives of the Church in the Philippines. The titles thus involved are to be searched by officials at Manila and an attempt made to restore to the rightful owners all property that has been wrongfully confiscated. After this has been done the serious task of determining what shall be done with the friars in regard to their future occupation of the Philippines will still remain. Owing to their great number and the wealth of their possessions, it will not be practicable to do as Captain Leary did at Guam—merely to ship them out of the island. Some scheme will be devised, however, by which the power of the friars will be greatly lessened.” Upon this the Standard and Times says: “When we bear in mind the composition of the Philippine Commission, there can be little wonder that Catholics should feel the deepest apprehension. Methodist438and Baptist and Presbyterian are howling like famished wolves for the spoils of the monasteries. Not one of them a Catholic, not one of them a man in whose impartiality a Catholic can have implicit confidence. Catholic interests in the islands which were until lately colonies of Spain have no defenders now but the Catholics of the United States. Let the full meaning of this fact be grasped by every Catholic here worthy of the name. Let it be borne in mind how difficult it is to get any news of a reliable character from those places on any subject, and then it must be seen how little chance there is of the Catholics in Porto Rico and the Philippines at least of getting their voices heard or their wishes respected. We say nothing of Cuba, which is not altogether in our power—as yet—like these other territories. If there were never a howl for confiscation from the disinterested (?) Christian sects, it would be an imperative duty of the free Catholics here to come to the aid of the millions of their co-religionists thrust outside the palisade of the Constitution while deprived of the protection of the friendly government of Spain. They are groaning under the evil of taxation without representation. They are neither American citizens nor Spanish colonials. They are tongue-tied and reduced to the position of the dumb animals without the benefit of a philanthropic society such as that which interposes between the quadruped brute and the biped brute. They cry to their fellow Catholics here to stand between them and an irresistible power whose force is being utilized, and may be still more crushingly utilized, for the purposes of a conscienceless and hypocritical propaganda of bigotry. This is the most immediate subject of concern for American Catholics.” It must be evident to everyone, that the government at Washington has some very difficult questions with which to deal in its recently acquired colonies. The treaty of peace with Spain provides that “the inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the free exercise of their religion.” And again: “Judgments rendered either in civil suits between private individuals, or in criminal matters, before the date mentioned [Aug. 12, 1898], and with respect to which there is no recourse or right of review under Spanish law shall be deemed final.” And yet, again: “The rights of property secured by copyrights and patents acquired by Spaniards in the island of Cuba, and in Porto Rico, the Philippines and other ceded territory, at the time of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall continue to be respected.” Much as justice may demand it, we do not see how, under this treaty, there can be even any review of titles of property in the Philippine Islands; to say nothing of the expulsion of the friars and the confiscation of property held by them prior to, and at the time of the signing of the treaty of peace. It has been asserted that much of the property held by the friars was acquired something after the manner of Ahab’s acquisition of Naboth’s vineyard (See 1 Kings 21). “Whenever a man had a desirable plantation, they would trump up some charge against him, have him arrested, and, without investigation, shot; and the property was turned over to the monks.” But this was done under color of law; and according to the treaty, which is “part of the supreme law of the land,” there is now no recourse that did not exist under the Spanish regime. The fact is that by the war with Spain, and by the treaty of peace, the United States have been brought face to face with some very perplexing questions. We do not impugn the motive of the Philippine Commissioners, nor of the representatives of the United States who framed the treaty, but we do seriously question whether, within the provisions of that treaty, substantial justice can be done as between friars and Filipinos. The State as the Protector of Liberty.
By A. Hovey, D. D.
(From "Religion and the State," by A. Hovey, D. D.) In the great natural right to liberty of action is included that of public worship, provided the same is peaceful and orderly. This indeed is the highest exercise of true liberty. Without it freedom is only a name, or, rather, it is a misnomer. If men may not obey their religious convictions in the worship of God, if the highest mandates of conscience may not be expressed in action which does no violence to the rights of other men, it is useless to speak of liberty, for it does not exist. When, therefore, Christians of any name ask for protection in public worship, they seek for no especial favor or distinction, but only for that which the state owes to all, whether Protestant or Papist, Jew or heathen. For all men are entitled to pay their homage without annoyance, in public or in private, to whatever being they please. In fact, every assembly of the people, called together for a purpose not criminal or seditious, must be protected from disturbance. A company of atheists, whether scientific or philosophical, has, in the eye of civil authorities, the same right to meet and proclaim unbelief, as any body of Christians has to meet for the service of God. For the state is not charged with the duty of ascertaining the true faith and supporting it, but with the duty of asserting the equal freedom of all men to think and act for themselves in matters of religion while they pay due respect to the rights of one another. It is a sad confession of weakness for any body of Christians to seek aid from the civil authorities in maintaining religion. It is a reproach to the Saviour, and to the agencies provided by him, when men call for the sword to turn the crowd in his favor. Let the friends of Christ be protected like other men in their natural rights, and trust to his grace and truth for the rest! Then will they never be put to shame.439 Must, then, the idol worship of the Chinese, who swarm the Pacific Coast, be protected by all the power of the state? Undoubtedly it must, according to the view of civil government maintained in these pages; or, rather, the liberty of the Chinese to worship thus must be defended, unless their worship can be shown to violate the natural rights of other men. The language of Roger Williams is not too strong: "It is the will and command of God, that a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-Christian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries." ("Bloudy Tenent," etc., p. 38. See Vol. iv. Publications of the Narragansett Club.) But does not the state indorse the action when it protects the actor? By no means; it simply performs its own duty in conserving the freedom of the people, leaving at the same time with every one of them the responsibility of his own conduct towards God. There is no better reason for holding the state to be implicated in the guilt of an idolator whose liberty it guards, than there is to believe it a sharer in the grace of a Christian, whose freedom to worship God it vindicates. Indeed, a course of argument that would make earthly rulers accountable for the abuse of the religious liberty which they assure to the people, would make the Creator and Redeemer of men responsible for the abuse of their moral freedom. A proper consideration of this fact would relieve the consciences of many who seem to have a sort of confused notion that "the powers that be" have some control over the religious belief and conduct of their subjects. But this is not all. The view of civil government as an ordinance of God for the protection of men in the exercise of their natural rights is the only one that will justify Christians in claiming protection from the state while they preach the gospel in heathen lands. For clearly it is absurd to ask the rulers of a heathen nation to concede to missionaries their rights to teach freely a religion which those rulers and their people believe to be false, while the magistrates of a Christian nation refuse the same liberty, as a right, to emissaries and teachers of idolatry. To say that the Christian religion is true, and idolatry false, is no reply to this; for if it belongs to the rulers of one nation to decide for the people what is the true religion, it belongs to the rulers of every other to do the same, and it is impossible to deny that, if they decide the matter at all, they must decide it honestly, that is, according to their belief. And so, acting by the light which he has, the emperor of China would proclaim Buddhism or Confucianism to be the true religion, and refuse protection to Christian teachers; the emperor of Russia would proclaim the orthodox faith of the Eastern Church, and deny protection to Methodist preachers; the king of Sweden would endorse the Lutheran creed and turn the power of the state against Baptists living in his cities; and all these rulers would perhaps adopt the words of John Cotton, in his letter to Richard Saltonstall, justifying the cruel punishment of Obadiah Holmes in Boston, saying that their "toleration" and "indulgence" could not be extended to any person acting "against the order and government of our churches, established (we know) by God's law and (he knoweth) by the laws of the country." It is cause for amazement that any thoughtful American can believe that the state, as such, ought to patronize Christianity in one place, if it may not do the same for Buddhism in another; or, in other language, that a Christian ruler is authorized to obey his conscience, while a heathen ruler is not. Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind, and act accordingly, is the lesson of an apostle to the early Christians; and the same great teacher inculcates the duty of respect for even the scruples of a weak conscience. Either, then, Christians have no right to claim protection from the state in preaching the gospel to the heathen, or the duty of the state is simply to protect men in the exercise of their natural rights, without attempting to act for or against any form of religion. That the latter view is correct, the writer firmly believes; and believing it would insist upon religious freedom for all—in China, or Sweden, as well as in the United States. But though human government has no control over religious faith or worship, it is bound to conserve with sacred fidelity the liberties of the people against all persons or influences that would destroy them; and, therefore, if any religious sect were known to deprive certain members of their personal freedom, it would be the duty of the state to restore this to them. If there were religious houses in which persons who entered them freely, perhaps in early life, were believed, on good probable evidences, to be kept against their will, the state would be under obligation to make diligent search, ascertain if possible the facts of the case, and prevent the use of any physical restraint abridging liberty. By so doing it would simply accomplish the purpose of its existence; by refusing to do this it would, in a measure, forfeit its right to be. For, according to the view laid down in this investigation, the sphere of its action is well defined, including the protection of personal freedom, the limits of its service clearly established, and the probability of any collision with any proper spiritual authority infinitesimal. Indeed, the perfect distinctness with which, on this theory, the ends of civil government can be explained, and the ample scope which it leaves for the spiritual reign of Christ over the minds, consciences, and hearts of men, are strong reasons for believing it correct. When truth is discovered, it is commonly found to be simple and harmonious. When the various duties and relations of men are clearly apprehended they will be seen to be self-consistent and indubitable.