The American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 22
In a speech in a meeting, in Omaha, recently held in the interest of Sunday obsePage 1
In a speech in a meeting, in Omaha, recently held in the interest of Sunday observance, Bishop Ninde expressed the opinion that there is little use to expect the people to keep the Sabbath holy until the church has won the masses to Christianity. He wanted to see the ministers get hold of the masses. There are people who make light of popular preachers, but he is ready at all times to take off his hat to the man who can draw the masses to hear the word of God. The church should go after the millions, no matter what their condition is. The churches of the present day have gotten into the habit of shifting along to keep up with the rich, instead of going after the masses everywhere and under all circumstances. He believes that if the churches would take hold in earnest and work for the salvation and conversion of every rank and class of humanity, the great Sabbath question would soon solve itself. The Bishop was loudly applauded, but just the same the usual appeal was made to the arm of flesh in the shape of a demand for enforced Sunday rest. In giving a history of Plymouth Colony, Mass., Governor Bradford concludes the record of 1621, thus:— And here I shall end this year; only I shall remember one passage more, rather of mirth than of weight. On the day called Christmas Day, the governor called them out to work (as was used), but the most of this new company excused themselves, and said it went against their conscience to work on that day. So the governor told them that if they made it a matter of conscience, he would spare them until they were better informed. So he led away the rest and left them; but when they came home at noon from their work he found them in the streets at play openly—some pitching the bar and some at stool-ball and such like sports. So he went to them, and took away their implements, and told them that it was against his conscience that they should play and others work. If they made the keeping of it a matter of devotion, let them keep their houses, but there should be no gaming or reveling in the streets. If the ultra Sunday law advocates could be treated in a similar fashion so as to bring down upon their own pates the full force of the logic of their movement, they might see the injustice and tyranny there is in it. If those whose consciences are disturbed by open picture galleries and moving cars on Sunday, were forbidden to look at their own pictures, or to ride in their own carriages, or to require their servants to wait upon them on that day, they might discover that other people have rights that ought to be respected. SPEAKING to the resolution before the Methodist General Conference, in Omaha, in favor of closing the World's Fair on Sunday, Dr. F. D. Blakeslee, a delegate from the New England Southern Conference, said:— I represent that little spot on the map of this great continent, a little speck which men call Rhode Island. It is, as I am accustomed to say, the pluckiest State in the Union. Many facts in our history are explanatory of my last remark. One particularly relates to this subject. Many of us remember that colossal engine at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, the product of Rhode Island skill and industry. It was proposed there to open those gates on Sunday. George H. Corliss, the maker of that engine, said: “Gentlemen, you have it in your power to vote to open the doors of this Exposition, and I suppose I can not prevent it; but, gentlemen, that engine is mine, and it shall do no work on God's holy day,” and it did no work, and the gates were closed; thanks to the Rhode Island man. I have the honor, also, to represent the Conference which has within its bounds “Old Plymouth Rock,” so suggestive of the action of our Pilgrim forefathers, who laid in righteousness the broad foundation of this Christian Republic. Representing as I do Rhode Island and New England Southern Conference, I do hope that this General Conference will unanimously, and by a rising vote, pass the resolution that is now presented to us. Of course Mr. Corliss had a perfect right to say that his engine should not be run on Sunday, although he should have so stipulated in the first place and not have waited until the Exposition was170dependent upon him for power to move the machinery. So far as showing the pluck of Rhode Island the Doctor would have done better by reference to its early history and its noble stand for liberty of conscience, but that particular feature of Rhode Island history was not apropos to the occasion. Not so the reference to “Old Plymouth Rock.” The Puritans had sterling qualities but tolerance for the religious opinions of others was not among them. They had no sooner escaped persecutions themselves than they began to persecute others, and “Old Plymouth Rock” instead of being, as some would have us believe, a souvenir of soul liberty is a reminder of the first religious despotism established upon American soil. A PITTSBURG paper asserts that on a recent Sunday, Law and Order spies tried to keep the employes of a circus, that happened to be in the city, from feeding the animals. “Nothing,” it remarks, “is too mean for the emissaries of Mr. McClure.” It is stated that Rev. Anna Shaw was asked to speak at the temperance convention in Boston on the question of opening the World's Fair on Sunday. But the lady had a mind of her own, and promptly replied: “You had better not call on me, for I don't believe in playing into the devil's hands by making Sunday a dull day. I am in favor of opening the Fair on the people's chief holiday.” “THE approaching summer,” says the Congregationalist (Boston), “will find hundreds of trains running over the railroads of our State every Sunday. Some of these trains will be used wholly for business purposes, but most will be filled with pleasure seekers, and will be arranged to secure this patronage. It is only just to say that on these trains will be some religious people bound on distinctly religious errands. If our Sunday trains existed only to accommodate notoriously wicked people they would hardly be called a problem.” That is to say, if religious people did not use Sunday trains for religious purposes they would not be tolerated! And that is only to say that Sunday belongs so wholly to religion and to religious people that it ought to be controlled wholly in their interests. It is a good thing that such papers as the Congregationalist speak out plainly upon this question. It will do much to clear away the “civil Sabbath” fog which the American Sabbath Union has caused to settle around the Sunday question. The Senate Committee on the District of Columbia has decided to report favorably the bill to prohibit the sale and delivery of ice, in the District, on Sunday, with amendments permitting such sale and delivery between the hours of seven and nine in the morning and five and six in the evening, while the House has taken time by the forelock and passed the bill, without so much as a word of debate, except a gentle reminder from Mr. O’Neil of Missouri that hot weather was coming on and the chances were that Congress would sit all summer and might need ice (to cool its heated discussions no doubt), but even this did not find its way into the published record. This matter is worthy of note as the first distinctive legislation on the Sunday question by either branch of Congress, and because of the fact that the wording of the bill causes the House to decide authoritatively the question as between the seventh and the first day, that the record in Genesis is wrong and that Sunday is the Sabbath. The importance of this step by Congress on the broad road to a union of religion and the State warrants an excerpt from the Congressional Record. This is the record of the passage of the bill:— DELIVERY OF ICE ON SUNDAY.
MR. HEMPHILL. Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H. R. 8867) prohibiting the delivery and sale of ice within the District of Columbia on the Sabbath day, commonly known as Sunday. The bill was read, as follows:— Be it enacted, etc. That from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful to sell or deliver ice in any quantity or quantities, by means of wagons or other vehicles, on the public streets or thoroughfares or at depots or offices within the District of Columbia on the Sabbath day, commonly known as Sunday. SEC. 2. That any person or corporation violating the provisions of this act shall be liable to a penalty of not less than $25 nor more than $50 for each offense, upon conviction in the police court of the District of Columbia. SEC. 3. That all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed. The Committee on the District of Columbia recommended the following amendment to come in after the word “Sunday” in line 7. In line 7 insert “except between the hours of 7 and 9 o’clock ante meridian and 5 and 6 o’clock post meridian.” The amendment was agreed to. The question was taken on the engrossment and third reading of the amended bill, and the Speaker declared that the “noes” seemed to have it. MR. HEMPHILL. Mr. Speaker, there are 3,000 employees asking for this bill, and the ice companies have agreed upon it. In nearly every city in the country from New York down, the sale and delivery of ice on Sunday is entirely prohibited. These employes work now fourteen hours a day, and this bill will relieve them by limiting their work on Sundays to three hours a day, two hours in the morning and one in the afternoon. It is simply a measure in the interest of these people who are overworked, and I do not think there can be any objection to it. MR. PICKLER. Why would not one delivery a day on Sunday be enough? MR. HEMPHILL. They think that this bill is reasonable. MR. HEARD. And that it will give better service. MR. HEMPHILL. Yes; that it will give better service. I ask for a vote. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. The question was taken on the passage of the bill, and the Speaker declared that the “noes” seemed to have it. On a division there were—ayes 76, noes 21. On motion of MR. HEMPHILL, by unanimous consent, the title was changed so as to read: “A bill regulating the delivery and sale of ice within the District of Columbia on the Sabbath day, commonly known as Sunday.” The bill will be brought upon its passage in the Senate soon, no doubt, yet, before the Senate shall have acted the icemen will probably demonstrate the entire lack of necessity for any such legislation by ceasing to deliver ice on Sunday, by mutual consent. Employees of the different ice companies have said when questioned as to the cause and necessity for such action in their behalf by Congress, that it only arose through the fears of the different companies, each that the other would continue to deliver on Sunday, and through a monopoly of the delivery on that day secure the others’ customers; it seemed to be the opinion among them, however, that the principal company, delivering in the city, would stop sending out its wagons for general delivery, on Sunday, at all events, although the bill should not become a law. The favor with which this bill has been received by the House and the District Committee of the Senate has already roused those who are interested in promoting this line of legislation to a consideration of the advisability of drafting and presenting a similar bill in reference to the sale of groceries on Sunday. It is evident that as soon as the smallest modern precedent shall have been established, committing Congress to this class of legislation, it will be immediately followed by other and more pronounced measures. The complexion of this Congress is much more religious, superficially, than the last. While it would not bend the knee to the theory of the divine right of governmental paternalism so readily, yet it would yield more unthinkingly to the authoritative demands of its individual pastors and religious masters. The petitioning of Congress for the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday still continues with unabated zeal. The Methodist Conference at Omaha telegraphed the President and Senate that about one-sixth of the population of the United States asked, through them, that Congress should take some action to close the Fair gates on Sunday, or at least should make that the condition of further appropriations. The claim of numbers, which the Methodists thus officially make, absorbs the entire church membership, of all denominations, in the United States, outside of the Roman Catholic Church. These religious legislationists are phenomenally blind to the patent misrepresentations which they make. They seem to think that if they say it is so, then it is so, whether it is so or not, and what is more they expect others to agree with them. The conference of colored Baptists, lately in session in Washington, gave an evening to the discussion of the Sunday question, and at the close of a presentation of the claims of the first day of the week to be observed as a holy day of rest in preference to the seventh day distinctly commanded in Holy Writ, resolutions were passed in the usual language which characterizes the stock official action of the church organizations of late, resolving an “approval of the Christian Sabbath” and asking that Congress shut the gates of the Fair on Sunday and barricade them with some million dollar boxes of bullion out of the treasury vaults. FOR the furtherance of the organized effort to attain national and municipal righteousness by legal enactment and enforcement it has been quite the custom of late to bring to bear upon Washington, in the hope that some stray shot may hit a congressman, all the heavy artillery possible among the legal religionists. A masked battery of their forces having been lately uncovered in New York, in the person of Dr. Parkhurst, he was immediately invited to the Capital and spoke to an overflowing congregation at the Church of the Covenant, on the evening of May 16. Dr. Parkhurst's rhetorical style is quite “Kiplingesque,” sharp, biting, unique. His sentences were spear thrusts barbed with unexpected epithets. This unlooked for originality of thought and method seemed to catch his audience, which was fairly representative of Washington society in general, although there were but very few lawmakers and officials present; even those who lent their names to the public invitation being conspicuously absent. The exordium of the discourse was a studied philosophical presentation of the National Reform theory of the municipal and national responsibility of a Christian nation, in which he talked about saving men “in their social and civil inter-relation,” and reached the climax of that idea when he described Heaven as “a redeemed commonwealth.” According to his theory one of the last of the duties of the Church is the conversion of the individual. He says, It is a great thing to be a holy man, better to be a holy family and greatest to be a holy municipality. The Church has been busy with the individual and family, but if I do not mistake, and I do not think I do, it is just coming into touch with the organizations of society, and striving to have them seized upon by a divine spirit. Human history is to culminate in a divine municipality made up of holy men bound together in holy relations. If the only question was, how many men can be brought to their knees, all we would need to do as a church would be to strengthen our evangelical work.
The body of the discourse was an astute defense, indirectly, of the Parkhurstian methods for the evangelization of the municipality of New York, and a savage attack upon Tammany and the New York Police Department. In introducing Dr. Parkhurst, President Rankin of Howard University, referring to the means used by the Doctor to obtain evidence, in the late cases against proprietresses of houses of prostitution, brought by the Society for the Prevention of Crime, said “If there is any shame in the act we, Christian citizens of this Capital City of the Nation, wish by our presence here to participate in that shame.” It is safe to say that not all present were ready to agree to any such division with the Reverend detective. It must have been with mingled feelings that those who consider this a Protestant Christian Nation looked upon the funeral pageant in the Senate Chamber of the United States on the occasion of the171ceremonial service to the memory of the dead senator from Virginia, on May 16. It was the first time that the Roman Catholic funeral ceremonies were ever witnessed in the Senate Chamber. The sight was one to fix itself upon the memory and imagination, gorgeous, stately, impressive, suggestive. The Vice-President, the officers of the Senate, and the senators, bound with broad, white, silken sashes, rise at the entrance of the speaker, and officers, and members of the House, also wearing sashes of white silk; they arrange themselves side by side, Speaker of the House with President of the Senate, secretary with secretary, senator with congressman, and are seated; again they rise to honor the entrance of the Chief and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, gowned in their long black monkish robes, who take their seats at the right of the President of the Senate; in a few moments, again, all stand to receive the members of the Cabinet and the Diplomatic Corps: scarcely are all seated again before the entire assembly, in solemn silence rises to its feet, awaiting the bearers bringing the dead senator, closed in his narrow house, buried under masses of flowers, preceded by acolytes in vestments of purple and white, with uplifted crucifix, lighted tapers, and swinging censers of perfumed burning incense; the dignitaries of the church, bishop, and fathers, and assistant celebrants in their robes and vestments of purple and black, silver embroidered; at the head of the casket as it is placed upon the catafalque burn the wax tapers in the candelabra about the shining crucifix. After the service of the church, with opening invocation in sonorous Latin, and the address of the officiating bishop, a master of polished speech and pulpit oratory, the cortege re-forms and with shimmer of silk and shine of silver, a golden gleam of the crucifix through clouds of sweet incense, the strange and bewildering pageant passes from the Senate Chamber. And this was not a Roman Senator, but a plain and simple Virginian of the nineteenth century, who had served his country faithfully and without thought of ostentation; but who years ago had said that when he became a church member he would be a Roman Catholic. Rome never changes. It is a striking suggestion of the wide and general attention now given to the Church and State question of the legal observance of Sunday that this subject was in the minds of the two prominent men of the Capital City whose sudden deaths have just occurred almost within twenty-four hours of each other. The Virginia Senator was a member of the Senate District Committee which had under consideration the Sunday ice bill for the District, and was present at the meeting of the Committee in apparent good health, the next morning—dead. A respected and eloquent minister, presiding elder in his denomination, was advertised to preach on the “Sunday question.” Those who gathered to hear him were told, “Our pastor fell suddenly dead this morning.” Men die, but the truth and the error that they championed both live after them. Theory vs. Practice.
By J. W. Scoles.
ONE of the stock arguments used by those who advocate Sunday laws from a so-called “civil” standpoint, is to the effect that large numbers of workingmen are “compelled” to labor on Sunday, to the great detriment of their health, and therefore need a law freeing them from “Sunday slavery,” as these religio-political enthusiasts style it. This is paternalism, pure and simple, and if carried out, would make slaves indeed of those who are now free. All the compulsion that can possibly be brought into the case as it now stands, can not force a man to labor on Sunday against his own will. It rests entirely with himself to say whether he will or will not work, either on Sunday or any other day for that matter. But let a law be passed, forbidding labor on Sunday, and what then becomes of his freedom of will? It has passed out of his keeping entirely, at least so far as Sunday is concerned. Thenceforward he has no choice in the matter whatever, but must rest whether he desires to or not. Between the two evils of compulsory work and compulsory rest, we would personally most certainly choose the former, especially in view of the fact that the “compulsion” in regard to work exists only in name, while a law for Sunday rest, once secured, would, according to its advocates themselves, be enforced with all the zeal and tyranny that blinded bigots have used in enforcing similar laws in the past. As far as the question of healthfulness of Sunday work is concerned, it need only be said that it is not within the province of the civil law to decide when any individual is injuring his health by overwork. Thousands of men all over the land are allowing their business cares to so prey upon their mind that they are growing prematurely old; others are so overtaxing themselves in various ways that they are cutting off years from their lives. And yet the law takes no notice of these cases. Nor should it, even were they to be multiplied a thousand times over, for the very simple, yet sufficient reason, that civil government is not ordained for the regulation of such matters. Whenever any secular government leaves its legitimate work, to tamper with matters of personal liberty (Sunday laws included), it ceases to be pure government and becomes paternal government instead. But let us notice a little further, the claim so frequently made that Sunday labor is injurious to health, etc. The writer lives but a short distance from a city in which is located a manufacturing company operating two large blast furnaces which require the labor of more than a thousand men, and is run day and night the year round. Much of the work is necessarily very heavy, and here, if anywhere, a man's health would break down, surely, under the additional burden of Sunday labor. And yet, justice compels the statement that seldom is seen a more robust and hearty assemblage of men than are engaged in work at this place. In conversation with one of them, recently, he informed me that he had worked for the company nearly three years, and in that time had not suffered a day's illness. Not only so, but he stated that he had only been absent two days during the entire time. To my inquiry as to whether his was not an exceptional case, he replied that it was not, and said that there were scores of his fellow-workmen whose experience was similar to his own in this respect. Names in this incident might be given if necessary, but this is simply introduced to show the difference between the theories advanced by Sunday-law advocates and the actual practice of Sunday work. The claim so often made that Sunday laws are necessary for the preservation of the public health is utterly false and entirely without foundation. The whole animus of such laws is clearly religious and nothing else, and is but a covert and poorly concealed attempt to throttle freedom of thought, and to repeat the baleful mistakes of the past, by an alliance of the civil with the religious power. Let the people beware of the first step! J. W. SCOLES.
Graysville, Tenn. Sunday Closing of the World’s Fair
By W. A. Blakely
BECAUSE those who are clamoring for the closing of the World’s Fair on Sunday, are actuated by religious zeal in favor of the sacredness of the day, they, judging their opponents from their own point of view, seem to think that all who are opposed to Sunday closing, are enemies of the Sunday institution itself. But this is by no means the case. The question of the sacredness of Sunday does not affect the question in the remotest degree. If the Sunday institution was clothed with all the sacredness that divinity could bestow, still it would be entirely beyond the legitimate province of the Directorate of the Columbian Exposition, to close by law a single door on the first day of the week, for that reason. The true basis for opposition to Sunday closing is precisely the same as would be taken by Christians generally to compulsory baptism, under the direction of a law of those in charge of the Fair. “It is none of the Directors’ business,” would be the very sensible and indignant exclamation, “whether the people making exhibitions at the Fair are baptized or not. They are delegated with power to direct the Fair,—not to direct the religion of those who take part in the Fair.” If compulsory baptism were proposed, the question to decide would not be whether baptism was or was not a binding ordinance, or a spurious institution, or any kindred question. It would simply be, Have the Directors of the Columbian Exposition been delegated any power by the American people to regulate the religious observances of the World’s Fair exhibitors in 1893? If they have been clothed with such power they have the unquestionable right to enforce baptism; but if they have not been delegated such power, then they have no right whatever to interfere with the question of religion “in any way, shape, or manner,” but must leave the question, whether a man will obey God or disobey God, to the Supreme Being to settle, in his own good time and manner, with each individual himself. This is the Christian basis of opposition to closing the World’s Fair by any law of the Directorate in charge. I say “closing by law,” because I am most decidedly not opposed to closing the World’s Fair on Sunday, if such closing be the voluntary acts of the several exhibitors, prompted by172 a religious or any other laudable motive. I think such action would be a move that would show a remarkably advanced state of religion and morality. But, on the other hand, if the amount of religion and morality of the exhibitors is measured by the amount of law which supports it, it is a shame and a disgrace to American civilization and American Christianity. A law to compel the opening of the Fair on Sunday should be just as much condemned as a law to close the Fair on Sunday. The Directors have no authority in religion whatever, either pro or con. Ignoring all of this fundamental doctrine, however, which is one of the great principles of the American political system, the Sunday advocates demand that their holy day shall not be dishonored, and that the gates must close on that day; that the “American Sabbath” must be preserved! But do they not know that if they base their arguments on the holiness of the day, that their arguments will be examined; and that argument will be met with argument? This, it seems, has already been verified. The Catholic Record, of September 17, 1891, says, editorially:— The discussion on closing the World’s Fair on Sunday has brought into promiscuous use the word “Sabbath.” The Sabbath was the Jewish day of rest, and is still so observed by Jews who adhere strictly to the religion of their fathers. The Christian day of rest in English speaking countries is called Sunday, or the Lord’s day. The first appellation will do, and the second is very good. There is no need of a third name, and it is an absurd misnomer on the part of Christians to call it “the Sabbath.” It is a matter of wonderment to us to see Catholic clergymen use the word Sabbath for Sunday. We protest earnestly against this Protestant mode of speech. It does not look well for Catholics to knuckle to such Protestant fantastic notions. But Protestants are consistent in calling their day of rest “Sabbath,” for they have scriptural ground for keeping the Sabbath, and none at all for observing Sunday. Sunday is founded, not on Scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution. As there is no Scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday, and thus leave Catholics in full possession of Sunday. We, therefore, can’t see what business our Protestant friends have to call for the closing of the World’s Fair on Sunday. What does it matter to them whether or not a Catholic institution is violated? We don’t know whether or not the Commission before which the petition is pending knows its business; but, if it does, it will have no trouble in reaching a decision. It will call on the petitioners for proof that the observance of Sunday is prescribed in the Scriptures; and as no proof will be forthcoming, what will remain but to dismiss the petition? The Sabbath Recorder, a prominent journal of the American Seventh-day Baptists, also speaking editorially upon the Sunday-closing discussion, said in its issue of September 24:— We may look for one result from the discussion of this question—the people will be pretty thoroughly instructed in regard to the fact that Sunday as a Sabbath is not found in the Bible, and is entirely an extra-Bible thing. The time is at hand when he who attempts to combat the change-of-Sabbath theory, or the theory that Sunday has any biblical claim for recognition as a Sabbath-day, will be fighting windmills. It can truly be said that the time is at hand when no intelligent Christian will try to defend Sunday-keeping on either ground. These are the historical facts and arguments that are elicited by the demands of the Sunday advocates for the closing of the World’s Fair on the first day of the week. If they assert that that day is sacred, it is but natural that their opponents should bring to light what the Bible and history have to say upon that point. Hence, although the sacredness of the day has no real bearing on whether or not the Fair should be closed on Sunday, yet, the repeated demands for closing the Fair that the “Sabbath” may not be desecrated, will inevitably give publicity to the question as to whether Sunday is, or ever was, a day set apart by divine authority for religious worship. Whatever may be the results of such a discussion, the Sunday-law agitators can rightly blame only themselves for the outcome. The better way would be to act justly, and let every exhibitor follow the dictates of his own conscience. Let the Sabbatarian close his exhibit on Saturday, but compel no one else to do so; let the observer of Sunday close his exhibit on Sunday, but compel no one else to do so; let any one of a different mind close his exhibit on any other day that he may choose, but do not compel any one of a different mind to do so. This is justice; this is democracy; and this should be the policy that should govern the managers of the great Columbian Exposition in 1893. ‘LEGAL religion is the mother of illegal and unchristian laws. Illegal law brings anarchy and misrule. Legal religion is the enemy of equity and Christianity. Why Not Appeal to Principle?
By W. H. M.
APROPOS of Justin D. Fulton’s criticism of Mrs. Potter Palmer’s request to the Pope to aid the Columbian Exposition in its woman’s department, and relic department, the Washington Post, of May 17, says, editorially:— It begins to appear that by the time the Chicago Fair opens we shall have the whole country by the ears on one issue or another. If the Protestants are to make war on the Roman Catholics, and the latter should be goaded into retaliation; if one denomination insists on closing the Fair during Sunday, and the Jews and Sabbatarians demand that Saturday, the seventh day, be kept holy; if the Mussulmans insist upon recognition for their hebdomadal celebration; if the temperance people make war on beer, and the Salvation Army clamors for free pratique within the grounds—if, in other words, this proposed industrial demonstration is to be turned into a battle ground of creeds, philosophies, and superstitions, then what, ladies and gentlemen, is to become of the Fair? Certainly if the Protestants insist upon the exclusion of the Catholics, or vice versa, or if any sect succeeds in impressing its peculiar views upon the management, the Exposition, at once and irrecoverably, loses its national and comprehensive character and degenerates into a mere doctrinal propaganda without interest or importance in the eyes of three-fourths of the people of the United States. We see no remedy for, or protection against this rapidly increasing peril save in the courage, the firmness, the good sense, and the patriotism, of the management, both general and local. It is now unmistakably evident that the spirit of intolerance will destroy the Fair if it only can get the opportunity. The Post fails here to make a correct discrimination as to the positions occupied by the different parties to this controversy in regard to the World’s Fair. The party which has long and insistently made known its demands as to the Sunday closing of the World’s Fair, is the party of intolerance; its requirement is that all shall conform to the course which it follows as to Sunday observance, in the matter of attendance upon the Fair. The words of the Post would lead one to suppose that the Jews and Sabbatarians do, or would, advocate the same legislative course as to the seventh day as is asked for the first day. But few Jews, comparatively, have expressed themselves publicly upon this question, but where they have it has invariably been to advocate the correct principle of civil neutrality in religious questions. The Sabbatarians who are expressing themselves with earnestness in this matter would feel themselves bound to oppose with equal zeal and persistence any suggestion to enforce civilly the observance of the seventh day. They stand, every man of them, for the principle of the non-interference of the civil law in matters of conscience and religion; that the civil authorities have no right to legislate either for or against, neither in favor of or in derogation of either religion in general, or any religious observance in particular; that human laws can deal only and solely with civil matters; that this is a principle of universal application, bearing with equal force upon him who enunciates it as upon him who denies it. The position of the Sabbatarian is an entirely unselfish one, it is just as much for the protection of the Sunday observer as it is for the Sabbath-keeper that this principle should be maintained; even more, for a pursuance of the present course for but a very short time will utterly destroy all saving power in religion as preached or practiced by them, and make human law and lawgivers intermediate between them and their God. Scarcely one newspaper in a thousand throughout the whole United States has comprehended and expressed the principle involved between these conflicting petitions to Congress in reference to Sunday closing at the World’s Fair. Has an intellectual blindness upon this subject fallen upon the whole country? The Post is justified in its premonition of danger at hand; and it extends not only to the World’s Fair, but to the civil and religious polity of the country at large, as well. Why depend, in such peril, upon the courage, good sense, firmness, patriotism, or any other fallible attribute of any man or set of men? Why not appeal to that universal and eternal principle of justice, truth, and righteousness, which applies in the case, and rely upon that?
W. H. M. No Righteousness by Law.
By J. O. JOHNSTON
THOSE who are now working so hard in this country for laws to enforce Sabbath observance claim, that unless compelled by law, men will fail to do their duty to God. Mr. Crafts asks the question in his work, “Sabbath for Man,” page 447: “What can the churches, as such, do for the improvement of the Sabbath?” His answer is: “Let church conferences and assemblies continue to rebuke the Sabbath desecration of their own people, and call upon the national and State governments persistently for better laws and better enforcement.” The keeping of a Sabbath is purely a religious duty, and Mr. Crafts knows it; for he says, “A weekly day of rest has never been permanently secured in any land except on the basis of religious obligation. Take the religion out and you take the rest out.” It is the duty of every one to keep the Sabbath, and to keep it holy, too. Thus it is a moral duty, one we owe to God. Then when Mr. Crafts “calls upon the national and State governments persistently for better laws and better enforcement” of those laws to force people to keep the Sabbath, he is simply trying to force people by law to do their duty to God. Our duty to God is to do righteousness. Our first duty to God is to seek righteousness. Therefore to compel men to do their duty to God by law, is to compel them to do righteousness by law. If men can be made good by law, then all we173need is a perfect law to make men perfectly good. The Psalmist says, “The law of the Lord is perfect.” Then why not, as Mr. Gault, a district secretary of the National Reform Association, says, “Set up the moral law and recognize God’s authority behind it,” and enforce this perfect law, and make everybody perfectly good? Ah! Paul in his epistle to the Galatians tells us why. “If righteousness [goodness] come by the law then Christ is dead in vain,” “for if there had been a law given that could have given life, then righteousness would have been by the law.” “But that no man is justified [made righteous] by the law in the sight of God, is evident, for, the just shall live by faith,” and the law is not of faith. Here we are told positively that even the holy law of God, much less the laws of men, cannot make men good, or compel them to do their duty to God. Paul says, “I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law then Christ is dead in vain.” Therefore it is evident that these men who are trying to make men do their duty to God by law, are attempting to “frustrate the grace of God.” And even if the Rev. M. A. Gault should succeed in his attempt to “set up the moral law, and recognize God’s authority behind it,” it would only be to “frustrate the grace of God.” Righteousness does not come by law, but by Jesus Christ.