We know from all the examples of history, from all the long horrible record of bigotry and intolerance, that any union of Church and State is fatal to public interest, any governmental interference with the religious actions or beliefs of men a cruel and unjustifiable offense against our rights and liberties. There is no principle more thoroughly American than that every man shall practice and profess any religion or no religion that he shall choose. There can be no principle more barbaric and autocratic, more thoroughly un-American, than the enforcement of religious duties or sacraments by the civic power. It is a relic of a brutal and fearful past. It recalls the rack and the thumbscrew. It conjures up visions of the fires of Smithfield, of the tortures of Torquemada, and the persecutions of Salem. It is revolting, not alone to all sentiments of political justice and governmental equity, but to that sweet spirit of gentleness and love which is the appeal in the heart of Christianity. Beside all these reasons, such an action is utterly unconstitutional. As far as the laws of Tennessee are concerned there is no conclusion to be reached, as the Constitution reads: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; . . . that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given to any religious establishment or mode of worship,”—whereas the statutes show this beautiful disparity:—
SEC. 2289. If any merchant, artificer, tradesman, farmer, or other person, shall be guilty of doing or exercising any of the common avocations of life, or of causing or permitting the same to be done by his children or servants, acts of real necessity or charity excepted, on Sunday, he shall on due conviction thereof before any Justice of the Peace of the County, forfeit and pay three dollars, one half to the person who shall sue for the same, the other half for the use of the county.
The Sunday Times would respectfully direct the attention of all good men to this infringement of American rights and liberties; and would further respectfully refer this barbaric and obsolete statute to our candidates for the Legislature.—Sunday Times, Memphis, Tenn.
Degradation of Sacred Things.
It has long been a subject of remark that our Northern brethren mix religion and politics in a way which seems strange to us in this latitude. Not a few preachers and editors of religious journals have boldly entered the political arena. A New York pastor has recently published an astonishing plea for this sort of thing, in which he says:—
‘A preacher will not be degrading the dignity of his pulpit by taking advantage of a presidential election campaign for the announcement of great moral principles which bear upon political duties.
If we put the spirit of Christ rightly into political discussion, it will cease to be secular and become truly sacred teaching.’
As if this were not enough he closes his somewhat heated argument with those words:—
Rightly understood, the ballot box, in its place and time, is as sacred to the devout Christian as the waters of holy baptism or the table of holy communion in their time and place. No man may claim the honors and enjoy the blessings of a fervent Christian except he perform the duties and meet the obligation of a patriotic citizen.
As the political affiliations of the author of these remarkable utterances are perfectly well known to the people for whom they were written it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this pastor was purposely writing a shrewd campaign document. We have no words to express our utter repugnance for such degradation of sacred things.—Christian Index, Baptist, Georgia.
The Gloomiest View Yet.
By W. H. M.
THE Washington Post thinks Mr. Wanamaker should explain something that he has said in one of his recent Sunday-school talks, and in an editorial paragraph, on November 15, has this to say about it:—
In his regular Sabbath afternoon address to Bethany Sunday-school, on the 13th inst., Postmaster General Wanamaker said:—
“The strife between God’s people and his enemies is like that between the two great political parties, a continual and ceaseless wrangle. On the one side are the righteous, on the other the unrighteous. There is no third side. We must choose one or the other. Indifference is fatal. Every man stands either with or against God.”
This is the gloomiest view yet broached as to the significance of last week’s elections. No one hitherto has considered the question in any other than a purely political light, and no one, consequently, has suggested that religion was involved. Ordinary persons supposed merely that the country was tired of Republican theories and policies in government.
Mr. Wanamaker, however, assures his Philadelphia Sunday-school that the late campaign resembles the strife between God’s people and God’s enemies, the righteous being on one side and the wicked on the other. We know, of course, which is the righteous side in the religious strife, because Mr. Wanamaker himself is there in evidence; but he leaves us to guess as regards the political struggle, vouchsafing no tip further than that which the notorious facts of the case contain, viz.: That Mr. Wanamaker’s side was disastrously beaten. Does the Postmaster-General mean to imply that the wicked triumphed on Tuesday last and that the truly good are underneath?
This is an extremely important and interesting proposition of Mr. Wanamaker’s, but it should be put in a little more specific form if its distinguished author expects it to accomplish real good.
Of course Mr. Wanamaker had no intention of talking irreligious politics on Sunday. Indeed he has been known to say—since the election—that he could not discuss the political situation on that day,—with a reporter. But, in the bosom of his Sunday-school, that would be quite another thing. If to Mr. Wanamaker, as to editor Shepard, “politics is religion,” then he could not discuss the sacred subject with an irreverent reporter. Yet, as Mr. Shepard’s and Mr. Wanamaker’s politics is religion, so Mr. Cleveland’s and Mr. Whitney’s politics must be irreligion. The triumph of irreligion over religion, while a very gloomy subject to Mr. Wanamaker and his Sunday-school, would not necessarily be tabooed as between them, indeed it would be a matter of vital interest. But to converse upon the sad and sacred matter on Sunday, too, with a professor of the conquering irreligion, would be, of course, shocking to the feelings, and be at the same time political blasphemy. This is the specific proposition—Mr. Wanamaker and many of his party profess themselves to be the party of political religion and religious politics. To them, their defeat signifies the defeat382of religion. No wonder the words of the distinguished Sunday-school teacher, to the Bethany school, were somewhat pessimistic.
But let Mr. Wanamaker take courage, the incoming party will no doubt develop a religion which he may yet be able to endorse, ex-officially, as it were.
W. H. M.
Thanksgiving.
ONE of the leading papers of this city has this to say about Thanksgiving:—
No one cares to-day for the ceremonial Thanksgiving of the Fathers. The Puritan has gone and with him as he went he took his fasts and feasts, his rigid customs and observances.
Thanksgiving is no longer a religious day. Its churchly connection is lost. The Thanksgiving of to-day resembles no more that of the past than the airy splendor of the butterfly resembles the dull, worm-like chrysalis from which it has burst and risen.
It is because of this transformation, this enlarging and ennobling change, that the local has become universal, and what once was a sectional custom is to-day a festival of national observance. As a religious expression it no longer exists, but as a popular holiday—as a symbol of home and of the loves, the joys, the memories that cluster around the heartstone—it not only retains but tightens its hold on the regard and affections of the people.
It is a day for memory, for meetings after long partings, for clasping of hands in happiest reunion. It is a day for sports and games and children's glee, for laughter and rejoicing, for tables loaded with plenty, for liveliest music and the merry movement of dancing feet.
Thanksgiving is the people's day, the day which stands for home and happiness, for gratitude and benevolence, for plenty and peace. The old Puritans builded better than they knew. Their grim and solemn ceremonial has become a feast and festival of gladness.
Everybody knows that this is true, and being true it is high time that the mockery of setting apart a day, professedly for the worship of God, which is in reality to be devoted to gluttony should end. It is generally conceded, we believe, that above all things the Almighty hates hypocrisy.
“The Constitution and Religion.”
[Bitter attacks and counter attacks have lately been made upon each other by Catholics and Protestants through the press of Chicago. The immediate cause of this was a sermon by Dr. R. S. Martin, pastor of Grace Methodist Church, in which he charged Roman Catholics with being enemies of the Government, and announced his refusal to attend the first meeting of the World’s Congress of Churches, which met at the Auditorium, Friday evening, October 22, because the speaker of the evening was Archbishop Ireland of the Roman Catholic Church.
Drawn out by this there appeared in the Chicago Evening Post an expression of views from a non-churchman, who looked upon the situation from the standpoint of a citizen, and “Interested Outsider,” and though awake to the hatred for each other which exists in the hearts of the members of the two great divisions of the so-called “Christian Church,” in this so-called “Christian Nation,” still thought the Constitution of the United States able to protect these belligerents from each other.
In a following issue of the Post, A. F. Ballenger commented upon the positions taken by this “Interested Outsider” in the language reprinted below.]
Editor of the Evening Post:
In your Tuesday evening’s issue “Interested Outsider” painted a picture, sad but true to life, representing the malignant sectarian hatred everywhere manifesting itself. Your correspondent draws aside the curtain, presents the forces in battle array and then instantly gives the order to disband in the following words: “There is no danger of any church, Romish or otherwise (Protestant), gaining control of this country. The Constitution is safe and the clergy should thank their several and individual gods that the Constitution is back of them. . . . There will be no religious war. If one should appear the United States will mingle with it, and heads will be cracked indiscriminately, Protestant and Catholic alike.” Your correspondent shows greater knowledge of ecclesiastical party contentions than he does of the Constitution of the United States and recent federal court decisions. The Constitution upon which his optimistic view is based, in the light of recent decisions, is valueless in the direction of protecting us from the strife of religious controversies. Judge Hammond, of the United States Circuit Court for western Tennessee, recently declared, in the case of R. M. King vs. The State of Tennessee, that “they (the founders of our Government) left the States the most absolute power on the subject (of religion), and any of them might, if they chose, establish a creed and a church and maintain it.”
Again, the United States Supreme Court recently decided that “this is a Christian Nation.” The Supreme Court is above the Constitution since it has power to interpret it. Now that it has been decided that this is a Christian Nation the next question to be decided is, who are the Christians? Protestants claim that they exclusively are the Christians, and the Catholics just as vehemently make this claim for themselves. Just so sure as Constantine was compelled in the fourth century, after adopting Christianity as the religion of the empire, to decide which of the contending factions was the “legitimate and most holy Catholic Church,” so now the next logical and inevitable step to be taken is to decide which of the contending elements is entitled to be called Christians. Having done this, the Government will have become a partisan to a religious controversy, and will thereby lose its power to keep the peace, the power which your correspondent, after presenting a most forbidding state of affairs, falls back upon for safety.
Already Congress is beginning to act upon this Supreme Court decision. Congressmen with this decision in their hands argued on the floor of Congress that since this Nation had been decided by the Supreme Court to be a Christian Nation, it was the duty of Congress to protect the “Christian Sabbath” by closing the World’s Fair on Sunday. Congress acquiesced and thereby enlisted the Government of the United States on one side of a religious controversy, not only as to which is the “Christian Sabbath,” but also as to the proper way of observing it. The trouble has only just begun, and the Constitution is powerless, under recent interpretations given it, to keep the peace.
A Hindrance to Religion.
THE Christian says: “It is surely no favorable symptom that a bull-ring of colossal dimensions and capable of accommodating 12,000 spectators has been opened at Lisbon. What good influence can the national religion exert when the Sunday is devoted to such a debasing, brutal pursuit?”
Indeed it is not a favorable symptom. There is nothing good about it. But what about the question that is asked,—“What good influence can the national religion exert when the Sunday is devoted to such debasing, brutal sports?” The answer must be, None. The national religion can do no good for various reasons, one of which is that the national religion is favorable to such things, and another is that national religion never did and never can do any good. Individual religion would put a stop to such practices, if the religion were of the right kind, and if there were enough individuals who possessed it. But national religion means religion by law, and law never made anybody good.
National religion fosters such things, because national religion is necessarily at the expense of individual religion of the vital sort. When there is a national religion, people naturally come to think that nothing is required except what the law of the land demands, which is necessarily nothing but form and ceremony, and so they do not realize the necessity of a change of heart. But when the heart is unchanged, the evil that is in it will find vent in some way.
But leaving the question of national religion aside, think of the question again. It shows a growing tendency of the age. The idea is growing among the churches that much of the work of evangelizing the world must be done by the secular authority; in other words, that the world must evangelize itself. The State is required to prohibit Sunday amusements, in order that religion may make more headway. Fancy the apostles lodging a complaint that they could do nothing, because the Roman Government provided so many amusements to keep the people away from church! No; they went ahead and preached the gospel, and its power turned the people away from those vanities. A gospel that can not do that is not a gospel at all, and ought not to be preached. It was only when men lost the power of the gospel, that they besought aid from the civil power.
The indifference of government is not the hindrance to the progress of religion. The early Christians, as well as the missionaries to India and China, have demonstrated that. The only thing that can hinder the progress of true religion is the lack of it in the hearts of those who profess it and whose duty it is to proclaim it.—Present Truth, London.
Unconstitutionality of Sunday Laws.
IN a late number of the Mail and Express Secretary Knowles, of the American Sabbath Union, answers objections to Sunday legislation. Among those noticed is the following:—
It is unconstitutional for Congress to pass any law relating to Sunday.
Answer. Laws on this subject—State and Federal, constitutional and statutory—have existed from the beginning of our history and are vindicated by decisions of the Supreme courts of twenty-five States and by recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in 1885 and 1892, which interpret and outrank the Tripoli treaty and the action of Congress on Sunday mails in 1829, both of which are sometimes illogically quoted against such legislation.
The decisions of the various courts in the various States present a medley of contradictions. Some defend legislation in favor of Sunday—on extreme theocratic grounds—falsely assuming that the Mosaic legislation concerning the Sabbath is now applicable to Sunday, and that the United States should follow in the footsteps of Moses, and enforce Sunday observance as Moses did Sabbath observance. These decisions are the strongest supporters of Mr. Knowles's position, although he would undoubtedly interpret them more liberally than the judges did who have made them. But the question is not one of personal opinion, or even of judicial interpretation. The underlying principle involved is larger and more vital than any of the opinions—conservative or liberal. The popular cry in favor of congressional interference is:—
This is a Christian Nation; the Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is the distinctive exponent of our national Christianity; it ought to be put on exhibition at Chicago as the best product of our Christian civilization; therefore, the national Government should interfere, and protect and exalt Sunday.
Let this be granted for the moment, that the reader may see what follows. If Congress ought to enforce the observance of Sunday because this is a “Christian Nation,” and Sunday is the “Christian Sabbath,” it ought also to enforce regard for every practice that is “Christian.” And since creeds and practices are closely united, as cause and result, Congress ought to enforce the acceptances of creeds that are “Christian,” and thus establish in toto the pagan doctrine of State religion. Indeed, Congress has already assumed to decide the national creed in the matter of Sunday, by declaring that Sunday shall be observed under the national law. This decision is extra and antibiblical—as much is which has been decreed by State religious legislation; so that the law has in effect superseded the law of God and the teaching of the Bible. Baptism is an essentially “Christian practice;” if a “Christian Nation” should enforce regard383for the “Christian” Sunday, rather than the “Jewish” Sabbath, it ought to enforce regard for “Christian baptism,” and so on to the end of the chapter.
The plea that the law does not “compel men to be religious,” is a subterfuge. As we have shown from the official records of Congress the Sunday closing of the Exposition was urged on religious grounds, and out of deference to the religious sentiment of the Christian churches. There is no ground for ceasing work on Sunday rather than any other day, except on religious grounds. To compel cessation from labor on any day, in deference to religious sentiment, is to enforce a religious observance of that day. All Sunday laws which forbid doing on Sunday what may rightfully be done on other days is religious legislation. Saloon-closing does not come under this head, for the saloons are an injury and a menace to the Commonwealth on all days. And the folly which licenses and protects them on all days except Sunday makes it impossible to close them on that day of leisure.
The friends of Sunday are leaning on a broken reed in their eager appeal to Congress. When there is so little conscience that even Christians will do much which the civil law prohibits, there can be no permanent or essential good in adding law to law. But the worst feature of the case is the false security which Christians will feel in the “protection” of the civil law, and the lessening of regard for the divine law, as a consequence. This turning away from the law of God, and “going down to Egypt” for fruitless help is an open confession that Sunday observance can not be sustained on biblical and historic grounds. In a word, if the legislation of Congress compelling the cessation of business on Sunday, because this is a Christian Nation, be correct, the whole doctrine of State religion is affirmed and sustained. Is the “Pearl of Days” ready for this? We know Secretary Knowles too well to think that he believes in such a doctrine; but his defense of Sunday legislation carries to this inevitable result. No one step could now be taken more potent in exalting the influence and the fundamental doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States than the legislation which the “Pearl of Days” defends. Undesignedly, but not less surely, the friends of Sunday are opening a wide door toward Catholic supremacy. The Roman Catholic power can well afford to be quiet while Protestants forge their own chains.—Sabbath Outlook.
One Creed.
By W. A. COLCORD.
SAYS the Union Signal of November 10:
The great congress of all religions to be held at the World's Columbian Exposition in June of 1893, promises to afford a rallying point from which is sure to radiate the light of knowledge, the warmth of love and the actinic ray of practical results in favor of one creed.
And further remarks that—
Whoever contributes by a single utterance to such a heavenly consummation has not lived in vain; whoever by emphasizing the difference that separates the groups in political or church life into antagonistic factions, has lived by that much to curse and not bless his race.
Thus it was in the days of Constantine after Church and State had been united. Constantine himself stated it as his design “first, to bring all the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity.” And to the contending factions and quarrelsome bishops in the professedly Christian church at that time, he thus pleaded for unanimity among them and rest from their contentions:—
Restore me then my quiet days and untroubled nights, that henceforth the joy of light undimmed by sorrow, the delight of a tranquil life may continue to be my portion. . . . For while the people of God, whose fellow servant I am, are thus divided amongst themselves by an unreasonable and pernicious spirit of contention, how is it possible that I shall be able to maintain tranquility of mind? Open then for me henceforward by your unity of judgment that road to the regions of the East which your dissentions have closed against me, and permit me speedily to see the happiness both of yourselves and of all other provinces, and to render due acknowledgment of God in the language of praise and thanksgiving for the restoration of general concord and liberty to all.
But notwithstanding the calling of the Council of Nice, and the creed of Nice, and the emperor's threat of banishment to all who refused to subscribe to that creed, general concord was not restored, nor contentions and bickerings between former contending parties put an end to. Neither will the coming “congress of religions” which is to be held at the World's Fair next June, bring all the world to such a oneness of faith that religious controversies will cease.
The Union Signal further says:—
In the Bible we have a sufficient rule of faith and practice; the wayfaring man though a fool need not err therein, but he continually does so. If he did not stop at every opening in the woods and erect a guide-board he would get more rapidly over the ground. If only we could once for all accept the truth that religion is an affair of the heart, these brawling controversies would be at an end.
But after this great religious congress at the World's Fair is over, Catholics and Protestants, and the different sects of Protestants, in this country will still stop at “openings in the woods” and erect their “guide-boards,” and these “brawling controversies” instead of coming to an end will only increase, and differences be all the more emphasized; for, by the last source of authority in the Government, the Supreme Court of the United States, this has been declared “a Christian Nation;” religion has been appointed a seat in our governmental administration, and the question erelong to be settled will be, Which body of religionists shall occupy the seat? This seat will not long remain vacant, we may rest assured, for there are already too many aspirants for it; and when the question is once settled, by whatever means it may be, whether by court decision, legislative enactment, or bodily seizure, then “brawling controversies” will commence in good earnest, differences will be magnified, and molehills become mountains.
Thus, instead of the assured peace and desired unity and tranquillity in religious matters, as another has recently well expressed it, “old controversies which have apparently been hushed for a long time will be revived, and new controversies will spring up; new and old will commingle, and this will take place right early.” W. A. COLCORD.
Will They Maintain It So?
AN exchange has the following comment on the utterances of the field secretary of the American Sabbath Union, at Paterson, N. J., to which THE SENTINEL made reference some time ago. It is now a matter of lively interest, since the organization of active opposition to the Sunday opening of the World's Fair, whether or no Mr. George and the Sabbath Union will maintain the armed resistance he has threatened.
“In a speech at Paterson, N. J., recently, the Rev. Mr. George, Field Secretary of the American Sabbath Union, referring to the Sunday closing clause in the World's Fair appropriation, said: ‘It can not be repealed. We mean to maintain it at the point of the bayonet.’ No advocate of Sunday opening has anywhere made use of such violent language nor expressed such bloodthirsty sentiment as this. It is quite evident that the Rev. Mr. George is armed not so much with the ‘sword of the spirit’ as with the spirit of the sword and bayonet. It ought not to be difficult for anyone to understand that this Sunday question, anywhere and everywhere, is not merely a question of the pleasure or convenience of any class, but a question of religious liberty and equal rights.
“Shall any element be granted special favors and recognition at the hands of the Government, which is supported by and supposed to exist equally for all? Has Congress or any Legislature the right to make and enforce religious observances or prescribe the religious duties of any person? Shall Church and State be united? These are the questions, and the people would not long remain in doubt as to how they would be settled if the Rev. Mr. George and his followers could have their way. All the religious persecution, tyranny and bigotry of the past would be repeated, with the bayonet to back it up. Let no one suppose that this is an unimportant matter. It is one to which every liberty-loving American should give earnest heed. There is danger in indifference.”
“Should Church Property Be Taxed?” is a live question, and one fully answered in the tract bearing that title, No. 43 of the “Sentinel Library.” The author of this tract is a Baptist minister in the city of Brooklyn, and has shown himself master of his subject. 16 pages, price two cents; one dollar per hundred.
ONE of the most misleading claims set up by the National Reformers is that Israel was in reality a republic, and that therefore a theocracy is not inconsistent with popular government. The fallacy of this claim is fully shown in the tract, “THE REPUBLIC OF ISRAEL,” 8 pages; price, one cent; fifty cents per hundred.
ARE you thoroughly versed in regard to the proper relations that should exist between Church and State? If not you ought to read the revised edition of "CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION," No. 32 of the "Sentinel Library." There is nothing better to loan to your neighbors to read during the long winter evenings. Large pamphlet; price twenty-five cents. Usual discount for large orders.
HENRY M. STANLEY, the African Explorer—By Arthur Montefiore, F. R. G. S. Brought down to 1889. 12mo. 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75 cents.
JOHN WILLIAMS, the Martyr of Erromanga—By Rev. J. J. Ellis. 12mo, 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75 cents.
Address all Orders toPACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY,12th & CASTRO STREETS,43 BOND STREET,OAKLAND, CAL.NEW YORK.
This plea for the workingman has been pooh-poohed by the advocates of rigid Sunday closing, but it is certainly worthy of consideration. No one can see the entire Fair in a single day. It follows that if the average workingman must deduct both the time and the money necessary to see the Fair from his already too scant wages, or else forego the privilege, thousands will be compelled to do the latter. This does not prove, however, that the Fair should be opened on Sunday; it simply shows that Congress in deciding for a closed Fair ignored the working men in order that a sop might be thrown to the churches.
ALL these men work on Sunday because they feel that it would be wrong to do otherwise. They acknowledge only one Sabbath, namely, the seventh day, and they can not conscientiously observe another day by abstaining from worldly labor and business as the law of Tennessee requires. They believe that the fourth commandment not only requires them to abstain from worldly pursuits on the seventh day, but that it requires them to regard and treat all other days alike, to do on the other six days whatever work or business they have to do. And in this they are not peculiar. In the Mail and Express of November 29, 1892, the editor, who is also president of the American Sabbath Union, says:—
The fourth commandment covers not merely the Sabbath day, not merely the one-seventh continuous part of time, but it also covers the other six days in the week. It imparts two obligations upon mankind. The one is to work six days in the week. The other is to rest the seventh.
This is true, not because Mr. Shepard says it, but because it is in accord with the word of God. Some months since the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, the organ of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, argued this matter thus:—
The language of the commandment imparts something more than a mere permission to labor upon six days of the week. It imparts something in the nature of an obligation.
The propriety of its doing so can be readily seen. Six days of the week are left to be devoted to man and his temporal interests, but the seventh day is the Lord's,—the day upon which he rested, and which he blessed and sanctified. This day must therefore be kept distinct and separate from all other days, and of course the means for doing this must not be likewise employed in behalf of other days, or the distinction would be lost. If mankind should regularly refrain from work upon two days of the week—the seventh day and some other day—in the manner prescribed by the commandment for the seventh day, there would be nothing in it to show which day it was that God rested upon, and which he sanctified and blessed,—nothing to signify that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested upon the seventh,—and thus the purpose of the institution would entirely fail. The observance of the commandment by rest upon the seventh day would be nullified by the like rest upon the other day. It is absolutely essential, therefore, that the six working days should be kept distinct in character from that day which God has set apart for himself.
On the last day before its recent adjournment, the Vermont Legislature by a vote of ninety-nine to sixty-seven rejected a resolution indorsing the action of Congress in closing the World's Fair on Sunday. This action is the more significant in view of the fact that two years ago the Legislature of that State passed a resolution requesting the closing of the Fair. Other indications are not lacking to show that if public sentiment ever was in favor of Sunday closing, it is rapidly changing.
Six of the Seventh-day Adventists indicted some weeks since in Henry County, Tenn., for quiet Sunday work, have been arrested and placed under bonds to appear for trial early in February, 1893. Other arrests are to follow, if they have not been already made.
THESE men will doubtless be convicted. They are all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and as it is already in evidence in the trials held last May that it is the habit of members of that church to work on Sunday, it is a foregone conclusion that all the accused are guilty of Sunday work.
THIS being the view entertained by Adventists, it follows that to obey any Sunday law that forbids them to follow their secular vocations on Sunday, is at the same time to violate their consciences. And in requiring them to do this under penalty, the State of Tennessee abridges their liberty, and violates the Constitution of that State which declares that “no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.”
THE Sun, of this city, remarks that “President Higginbotham’s action in behalf of the directors of the Columbian Fair, asking that the act of Congress requiring the gates to be closed on Sunday be reconsidered and reversed, ought to effect that result.”
In his plea for an open Fair, President Higginbotham says that “a large majority of the people of the United States are in favor of opening the Fair on Sunday.” The Sun declares its belief that “a very large proportion, perhaps a majority, of the people who are regular church-goers are in favor of having the Fair open, because it will afford a better place to pass the time than would otherwise be chosen by the great body of visitors.”
“But the strongest argument,” says the Sun, “and one which ought to be decisive, is that Sunday is the only day which tens of thousands who ought to see the Fair can command for that purpose. If they can not visit it on Sunday they will not visit it at all, or at best they will see comparatively little of it. If the Fair is not for them it might almost as well not be held.”
As we have said before, an open Fair is not compatible with Sabbath-keeping. Those who regard Sunday as the Sabbath, could not, in the very nature of the case, consistently attend the Fair on that day. But that is no reason why they should insist that the tens of thousands who regard Sunday only as a holiday should not be permitted to visit the Fair, provided those who have the management of it and who are responsible for it, are willing that they should do so. The evil of this Sunday-closing movement is, that it has by threats of political boycott induced Congress to do something that it had no right to do, and to take sides in a religious controversy, something which the framers of the Federal Constitution designed to forever prohibit.
It is stated that the ministers of Port Jervis, this State, irrespective of creed, have combined with the undertakers and signed an agreement to discontinue the holding of Sunday funerals hereafter. They say that they shall decline to attend any such services except in cases of absolute necessity. The agreement is signed by ten ministers, Protestant and Catholic, and two undertaking firms, and was read yesterday from the various pulpits. Sunday funerals had become so prevalent that the clergy resolved to break up the custom, and thereby lessen their labors on that day. This shows the amount of regard the ministers have for “the poor working-man,” for by this action many wage-workers will be compelled to take choice between a day’s wages and the privilege of paying the last sad tribute of respect to departed friends, and when burying their dead, many sorrowing families will be denied the satisfaction of the presence and manifest sympathy of a large number of neighbors and friends. Many of the ministers are becoming as lazy, wicked and heartless, as were the popish priests just before the Reformation.