Where does the Civil Sabbath Come In?
By A. T. J.
In the California Christian Advocate, July 31, 1889, is a long article by Rev. E. D. McCreary, Ph. D.—Doctor of Philosophy—on “Observance of the Sabbath.” It hasn’t anything in it particularly new, but now when there is such demand for the enforcement by law of a civil Sabbath, it is important to keep the run of the discussions upon the subject. The Doctor says:— “The saloon is the worst enemy of the Sabbath, persistently in the face of all laws, human and divine, devoting the hours of that holy day to its nefarious work, it reaps larger returns from its Sunday traffic than any other day in the week.” Is it because the saloon is more open on that holy day than any other day of the week, that it reaps larger returns? How is this? Why is it that the saloons reap larger returns from Sunday traffic than upon any other day of the week, when the saloon is open every other day of the week as well as on Sunday? There is one reason, and only one, that ever can be offered in explanation of this fact. That reason is, that more people are idle that day than any other day of the week. Other days of the week men are allowed to work, and while a man’s time is occupied by work, and his mind is upon that, it is easy enough to keep sober and to keep away from the saloon. Allow people to work on Sunday, as they have a right to do, and the returns from liquor traffic on Sunday will be no larger than on any other day. But instead of this, the preachers throughout the whole country demand laws both State and national, to compel men everywhere to be idle on Sunday, and then they make a national complaint that the saloons reap larger returns upon Sunday than any other day; when the reaping of these larger returns is because of the idleness into which the laws have forced the people, to satisfy the preachers. “It is estimated that not less than two millions of workingmen in this country are engaged in Sunday work, . . . while millions more spend the day in frivolity and amusement, turning its holy hours into seasons of recreation and dissipation.” Well, now, Doctor, are not those two millions who are engaged in their honest occupation on Sunday a good deal better off than those other millions who spend the day in frivolity and dissipation? And, indeed, are they not better off than the great mass of those who spend that day in amusements and recreation? Because, you know that much of the amusement, and of the recreation, too, indulged in on that day, is not by any means as innocent, nor as harmless, either morally nor physically, as is the work in which the two millions are engaged on that day. Has it come to this that honest labor must be counted worse than frivolity or dissipation? worse than questionable recreation; and more than questionable amusement? Shall it be admitted that the man who follows his honest occupation on Sunday as on other days, is more wicked than those who spend the day in amusement and recreation? or that he is as bad as those who spend the day in frivolity and dissipation? If these Sunday-law ministers have such a tender regard for the laboring man, and such high respect for the dignity of labor, as they profess, they ought to have respect enough not to class honest occupations with frivolity and dissipation, nor to put the workingman on a level with the frivolous and dissipated. As for us, we never will admit that the man who follows his honest occupation on Sunday is as bad as those who spend that day in frivolity and dissipation. Nor will we ever admit that work is worse for men than are frivolity and dissipation. “California, of all the States in this great commonwealth, enjoys the unenviable reputation of having swept from its statute books every legal safeguard of the Sabbath, both as a civil and religious institution.” But nobody but the Sunday-law workers have counted California’s reputation in this as unenviable. They are the only ones that are complaining of it. But, admitting that she has this “unenviable reputation,” it is only proper that she should enjoy it, because by the plain evidence of the field secretary of the American Sabbath Union, who is just now the chiefest Sunday-law worker of the Nation, it is shown that California has the enviable reputation of having “the best Sunday observance” and the “best attendance at church services” of any State in the Union. This being so, California has a right to enjoy this “unenviable” reputation, because by it she enjoys the entirely enviable reputation of having the best Sunday observance and best church attendance of any State in the Union. And if in sustaining this enviable reputation she is made subject to the unenviable reputation, it is proper that she should enjoy it, because it certainly is enjoyable. The Doctor quotes Blackstone to the effect that “a corruption of morals usually follows the profanation of the Sabbath,” when the truth is that corruption of morals precedes the profanation of the Sabbath. Man’s morals has got to be corrupt before he will profane the Sabbath. This statement of Blackstone’s is of the same piece with all religious legislation and Church and State schemes. The whole thing is wrong end foremost, and it is only by that means their demand for legislation on the subject can ever be justified even in appearance. For instance, they start with Blackstone’s statement that corruption of morals usually follows the profanation of the Sabbath. Then they argue that that being so, if they can only get a law prohibiting under pains and penalties the profanation of the Sabbath, they can prevent corruption of morals and234save the Nation. But the whole thing is a fraud from beginning to end, just as is every other attempt to justify religious legislation. Corruption of morals precedes the profanation of the Sabbath just as it does the profanation of the name of God. Man’s morals has got to be corrupt before he will profane either the name or the day of God. Therefore, the first thing to do is to purify the morals, and that in itself will prevent the profanation of the day. But this can be done only by the inculcation of the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that can be done only by the power of the Spirit of God, and never by legislation. If the Lord could have stopped the corruption of morals in this world by law, he never would have needed to send the gospel. Then, having started in the wrong way, it is inevitable that the farther they go the farther they will be from the right. It is not at all surprising therefore to find him presently making this statement:— “Bishop Vincent, during the Christian Workers’ council recently held in this city, expressed a great truth when he said, ‘Better have the old Puritan Sabbath with all its somberness and rigidity, than the present laxity of Sabbath observance with its corresponding laxity and lowness of morals.’” Yes, no doubt the Sunday-law preachers would count that ever so much better than the present condition of things, because then the preachers ruled everything. Then the Sunday laws compelled everybody to go to church on Sunday, and if there was no church in the country of their own profession, they were compelled to go to the church of another profession and listen to the preaching there. Absence from the ministry of the word was punishable by a fine; and then, when people were thus compelled, under penalty, to go to church and listen to the preaching, it was such preaching as, said one of the victims, “was meat to be digested, but only by the heart or stomach of an ostrich.” Yes, we have no doubt that the Sunday-law preachers would be glad to see those good old times again. That is just what they are trying to bring about by their National Sunday law which is to make the State laws effective. And some of these State laws do actually at this hour of the nineteenth century command attendance at church on Sunday. The reader will perhaps wonder where, in all the Doctor’s discussion, the civil Sabbath and its observance come in. In fact it doesn’t come in at all. He says “we are commanded to keep it holy, and its sacred hours are to be employed in religious meditation and worship, and in deeds of charity and mercy.” He speaks of “the silent, but insidious and steady, encroachment of traffic and trade upon the sacredness of our holy day.” He speaks of railroads being “flagrant violators of the sanctity of the Sabbath.” He says “the Christian Sabbath is in great peril.” He says that Mr. Crafts “should receive the hearty co-operation of all persons who desire the perpetuity of our Christian Sabbath and the cessation of its desecration.” He says “the Sabbath is one of the chief safeguards of morality,” and quotes Justice McLean as saying that where there is no Christian Sabbath there is no Christian morality. He says the Sabbath is “essential to morality” “and much more” to the “preservation of religion;” and that “Sabbath desecration of all kinds imperils the very existence of our holy Christianity.” He says they must “labor unitedly and earnestly to secure the enforcement of Sunday laws where such exist, and to secure the enactment of better laws for the protection of this holy day;” and that the Christian church is the natural custodian of the Sabbath. Now if anybody can find anywhere in that, any hint of the civil Sabbath we should like to have it pointed out. If it is the civil Sabbath, why didn’t he say we are commanded to keep it civilly? and that its civil hours are to be employed about civil things? Why didn’t he talk about the insidious and steady encroachment of traffic and trade upon the civility of our civil day? Why didn’t he arraign the railroads as being flagrant violators of the civility of the Sabbath? Why didn’t he say the civil Sabbath is in great peril? Why didn’t he say that the Sabbath is one of the chief safeguards of civility? Why didn’t he say that the Sabbath is essential to the preservation of civility? If it is the civil Sabbath they want, and which they want laws to preserve, why didn’t he say that the civil government rather than the Christian church is the natural custodian of it? The mere asking of these questions fully answers every one of them, and exposes the sophistry of all their plea for civil Sabbath. There is no such thing. There never was and there never can be any such thing as a civil Sabbath. Rights in Washington.
By Editor
The following are the sections of the Bill of Rights of the new State of Washington, which have a bearing on religious liberty. The article is now under discussion in the Constitutional convention and we will note whatever changes there may be if any. We, the people of the State of Washington, to preserve our rights, do ordain this Constitution. SECTION 1.—All political power abides with the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights. SEC. 2.—The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. SEC. 3.—No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. SEC. 5.—Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. SEC. 6.—The mode of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as may be most consistent with, and binding upon, the conscience of the person to whom such oath or affirmation may be administered. SEC. 11.—Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion, but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching religious belief to affect the weight of testimony. SEC. 30.—The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise. Upon the principle that the intention of the lawgiver is the law, we know that rights will be secure under this Constitution; because we personally know that every member of the committee is indeed in favor of "absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship." And if these sections shall be adopted as they are, and carried out in the spirit in which they are framed, the State of Washington will be the best in the Union. Reasons (?) for the Religious Amendment.
By C. P. BOLLMAN
REV. D. W. WILLIAMS, of Weatherford, Texas, has an article in the Christian Statesman of July 4, in which he answers the question, “What good will the proposed acknowledgment of God in our national Constitution do?” He gives ten reasons (?) why the amendment should be adopted, only a few of which need be noticed, however. His fourth is this:— “It would obviate the difficulty resulting from the first amendment, which restrains Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of any kind of religion, however false and hurtful it may be. Mormonism is a kind of religion; therefore, according to the Constitution, it must not be interfered with. Let Christianity be recognized as the true religion, and the difficulty will be removed.” This idea is not original with Mr. Williams. The same thing, substantially, has been stated and re-stated many times by National Reformers. In the Pittsburg Convention of 1874, Prof. C. A. Blanchard said:— “Constitutional laws punish for false money, weights, and measures, and of course Congress establishes a standard for money, weight, and measure. So Congress must establish a standard of religion, or admit anything called religion.” This simply means that, whereas Congress now has no right to define or to establish a religion, under the amended Constitution it would have that right. It follows that it will also have the right to enforce the established religion and to forbid the exercise of all others. Mr. Williams seeks to convey the idea that under the Constitution as it now stands, Congress has no right to prohibit polygamy, but the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that Congress has that right, and the right has been exercised, so that the existence of polygamy can no longer fairly be made an argument in favor of National Reform. National Reformers have insisted that they do not want a union of Church and State, but according to their own statements, that is certainly just what they do want, because when Congress defines the Christian religion, that statement of what constitutes Christianity becomes the State creed. Whether that creed is held by only one church or by forty, it is none the less a State creed and a State religion, and it follows of necessity that the courts will pass upon all religious questions. Mr. Williams's sixth reason is, that— “It would furnish a constitutional basis for all our Christian laws, usages, and institutions. It is argued that our Sabbath laws, our chaplaincies, our thanksgiving days, etc., are unwarranted by the Constitution. Let that document be thoroughly Christianized and these objectors will be silenced. Moreover, it would be a security against unchristian legislation in the future, as statutory law must conform to constitutional laws.” There is a great deal involved in this. It simply means that, if the law of God were declared to be the fundamental law of the land, all legislation would have to be conformed to it, or rather to some authoritative interpretation of it; we would then see all our courts, from the United States District Court to the Supreme Court, sitting in judgment upon the decalogue and deciding what it requires and what it forbids. This state of affairs would inevitably follow the adoption of the National Reform Constitution. Another reason urged by Mr. Williams why the amendment should be adopted is, that “we need an oath that will bind the consciences by the sense of religious obligation.” It seems hardly probable that the gentleman would wish to be taken just as he says in giving this reason. He would certainly not wish to be understood as saying that the oath as administered in our courts would not bind his conscience. The fact is, if a man has proper regard for the truth, an affirmation is just as sacred as an oath. The writer would not be understood as disparaging the judicial oath. It is right and proper to take such oaths, but it is not clear how an honest, intelligent man can regard one form of oath as any more binding on the conscience than another form. And the “Christian” who would testify falsely unless sworn on the Bible, or unless the name of God was used in the oath, is a Christian only in name. It is stated that a Chinaman does not regard an oath as binding unless he is sworn by the blood of a white chicken, but I have supposed that the standard among Christians was higher than that, and that they told the truth not because of an oath but because of a conscientious regard for truth. Perhaps, however, some of the National Reformers feel that they cannot tell the truth unless they are sworn according to the National Reform order. Is that the way that Mr. Williams wishes to be understood? C. P. BOLLMAN. National Reform and Human Rights
Rev. W. D. Gray, secretary of the Missouri National Reform Convention recently held at Sedalia, said: “I do not believe that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and so the object of this movement is an effort to change that feature in our fundamental law.” Here, then, is something thoroughly antagonistic to the chief principle underlying the structure of our government. Why not put the Rev. Mr. Gray, or some other good National Reformer, in as dictator, both of the religious and civil rights of our citizens? We still are inclined to believe, however, that the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and those who drafted the Constitution of the United States, had a better conception of human rights and a higher regard for religion, than has the Rev. Gray and his National Reform colleagues. We also believe that when Lincoln declared that this ought to be a Government “of the people, for235the people, and by the people,” he uttered a principle against which the declaration of Mr. Gray cannot stand for a moment. If the reverend gentleman and his National Reform brethren are really anxious to be of service to the world—if they desire to be Christian in every sense of the word—let them spend their time, talent, and money, in mitigating poverty, alleviating distress and suffering. Let them, as did Christ of old, minister to actual wants. Let them strive to overcome evil by teaching and example, rather than by legal enactment. Christ never sought the aid, support, nor backing of civil law in any of his work. His professed ministers and followers of to-day should have a care lest they o’erstep the bounds of their authority. They should let fundamental law alone. It is better as it is, so far as religion is concerned.—The Phelps County (Nebraska) Herald. Compelled to Work on Sunday?
By E. Hilliard
THE clergymen of this Nation are continually raising the cry that the laboring classes, government employees, are compelled to work on Sunday. In the Senate hearing on the Sunday-Rest bill, in an article entitled, “The National Mail Service and the Sabbath,” by the Rev. T. P. Stevenson, it is said:— “During the session of Congress in 1828 (on the 12th of May and the 8th of July), the House was not permitted to proceed with business on Sabbath morning by reason of the steady and firm resistance of a large number of members who refused to recognize the propriety of proceeding with their ordinary business on that day. The votes for adjournment were nearly equally divided, and more than once lost by the casting vote of the chair. Members then declared that they would leave the House and not return before Monday morning, unless brought in by force, and very properly contended that no authority existed to compel their attendance on the Lord’s day; and the House on both occasions was compelled to adjourn.” (Italics ours.) It appears from this statement that the House was unable to carry on its business on Sunday, the day they termed the Lord’s day, because of “the steady and firm resistance of a large number of members” to taking part in the proceedings on that day, and the result was that the House was compelled to adjourn until Monday. They further contended that there was no power in existence to compel their attendance on that day. It seems that, by taking their stand for their individual convictions of duty, they maintained their personal liberty. But in the face of all this, Mr. Stevenson goes on to state:— “Now, since those men would not consent to labor a few hours on one or two Sabbaths in a year, with what consistency can they compel many thousands of their constituents to labor every Sabbath in the year?” (Italics ours.) It appears that in 1828 the government had no power to compel their constituents to labor on Sunday. From what source has it derived its power to “compel many thousands of their constituents to labor every Sabbath in the year” of 1889? When, where, and how has the government ever compelled any person to work on Sunday? Perhaps as good an answer as can be given to this question is found in a dialogue between Rev. George Elliott and Senator Call, which took place during the same hearing on the Sunday-Rest bill. Senator Call—“What law is it, either State or National, that requires work against a man’s conscience on Sunday?” Mr. Elliott—“Post-office clerks are required to work on Sunday. At the former hearing I called your attention to the fact that the present laws with regard to the postal service give too much discretion to local postmasters with regard to the requirements, the opening of the office, etc., on the Lord’s day.” Senator Call—“The law requires certain work to be performed on Sunday, but it does not compel any man to do it who is conscientiously opposed to working on that day. You say the State is trifling with the conscience of the church. How does it do so?” Mr. Elliott—“You make it difficult for men to hold office. Of course you do not compel a man to work on Sunday; he can resign his office.” In this, Mr. Elliott is compelled to admit that no man is compelled to work on Sunday. Now if those individuals in the employ of the government would all do as those Congressmen did in 1828, there would be no need of this hue and cry for a Sunday law. The great trouble is, this class of government employees do not care a whit about the sanctity of the day. They have no genuine conscientious scruples against working on Sunday; for if the consciences of these individuals was what those advocates of a Sunday law claim it ought to be, every last one of them would resign his position before he would labor on the day he believed to be the Sabbath. But as their greed for gain overbalances their compunctions of conscience, and outweighs their faith in Him who has said, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you,” a law must be made to remove all opportunity to test the conscience and to develop faith. The argument of compulsory Sunday toil virtually says to the worker, “You are all right, for you are compelled to labor. It is the government which compels you to work that is committing the sin, and the only party that is responsible. If it comes to the pinch that you must give up your position or violate your conscience, why, of course, violate your conscience until we can legislate on the question; and, as Mr. Stevenson says, “ultimately determine the action of the government.” He might also have added, “and make it assume what we claim to be its proper functions towards you.” Of course the action of the government would be determined by the enforcement of a Sunday law. But, further on, Mr. Stevenson says:— “It has been estimated that 150,000 persons in the United States are deprived of the whole or a part of every Sabbath, to attend to the carriage and distribution of the mails. All these persons are compelled to choose between the loss of employment and performance of secular labor on the Lord’s day.” He also says the National mail service on the Sabbath (Sunday) is a violation of the law of God. Now when these individuals are brought into a position where they have a choice to violate, as he says, the law of God by working on Sunday, or refuse the demands of the government and lose their positions, they have deliberately decided to violate the law of God. And Mr. Stevenson says they are compelled to! What noble martyrs either of these parties would have made in the Middle Ages in standing for their conviction of conscience! E. HILLIARD.
Duluth, Minn. ESTEEMED FRIEND:—It seems you favor me with another open communication. This time it is “Nehemiah the Tirshatha, No. 2.” I had no idea that my innocent little piece could have the effect of stirring up any National Reformer very much, but from the flutter of your two replies, I conclude that game has been hit. 1. You begin by saying: “In my first criticism upon your article in the SENTINEL of the 17th, I showed that National Reformers are not in favor of a union of Church and State as you charge.” Since copying the above I have read that “criticism” carefully over for about the sixth time, and can positively say, You have not shown any such236thing. You have not even attempted to do so. You have not even mentioned the National Reformers except to announce that you are one. This is all. You probably allude to them when you request that your errors in expressing your opinions be not charged up to “others,” but further than this you have not gone. I do indeed make the charge as you allege, and think it can be proved without any trouble at all. You Reformers, I am well aware, are quite touchy on this point. You well know how decidedly opposed the American people are to any such scheme, and it is but natural that you keep this part of your business out of sight. But you say positively that you are opposed to any such union. O yes, of course you are. You are opposed to that kind of a union which it is impossible to get, that is, the allying of one particular denomination with the State. You are opposed to this because there is no danger of ever getting it, but you are not opposed to your kind of Church and State union! You are not opposed to the union of religion and State. Don’t you know you Reformers have coined this pretty phrase to quiet all suspicion? Church and State would be a terrible thing, but religion and State would be just the thing! The religion you wish allied with the State is the Christian religion. Well, between the Christian church and the Christian religion there is no distinction. The church is the embodiment of the Christian religion in this world, and in seeking to unite the Christian religion and the State, you seek to unite the Christian church and the State. The doctrines of the religion of Christ are the doctrines of his church, they cannot be separated—they are one. When you unite the one with the State you unite the other. So you gain nothing by this play upon words. You virtually declare yourselves in favor of a union of Church and State. 2. The constitution of the National Reform Association declares in favor of such union. I have before me the Christian Statesman of July 4, 1889. In this number the constitution appears twice. It being the “glorious fourth,” that paper showed its exuberant patriotism by giving its readers a double portion of Christian statesmanship. The object of the Reform movement is there stated to be to “place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” Now what are “all Christian laws, institutions, and usages” but the doctrines and practices peculiar to Christianity; and the Christian church is, or professes to be, the exponent and guardian of these. Indeed, as I have said, the church is but the living and visible body of “all Christian laws, institutions, and usages.” Take these away and the church will be taken away. The church cannot exist apart from them. So again, the National Reformers favor union of Church and State. If the tenets and institutions and usages of the church obtain recognition in our national Constitution—“in the fundamental law of the land”—there will be Church and State union out and out. So we have another count by which to make good our charge. Now don’t quibble here, my friend, and say that it is only “the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our Government—chaplaincies, national thanksgiving,” etc. I reply that our government has no “Christian laws, institutions, and usages.” The Constitution of the United States knows no such “laws, institutions, and usages.” Go a little further back in Article II. of the National Reform constitution, and you will find among the objects of the association that a prominent one—indeed, the first one mentioned—is the desire to “promote” the observance of the Sabbath. Now by Sabbath is meant Sunday—an institution of the church—and in asking the government to take “action” in its behalf is to ask that the State “promote” the observances of the church to the extent of directing the people how they must regard one of its institutions. If the State can “lay down the law” in respect to one of the institutions of the church; why may it not do so in others, and in all? In the only true theocracy there ever was in this world, viz., that of ancient Israel, the observance of the Sabbath was promoted by the State. Its violation was punished with death even. Ex. 31:14, 15. The theocracy of the Hebrews was Church and State. The Hebrew State was the Hebrew Church, and the Hebrew Church was the Hebrew State. They were one and inseparable. In every union of Church and State since, from the days of Constantine till now, Sunday has had a prominent place. When this Government takes Sunday and its observance under its fostering care, Church and State will result again. It will be an important “link” in the union. Other statements in the constitution which go to prove Church and State tendency might be cited, but these must suffice. 3. I showed in my first article that the National Reformers want a theocracy. The kind they wish to get will be as truly one as was the commonwealth of Israel. This is what they say. See Cincinnati National Reform Convention Report, 1872. That commonwealth, as I have shown, was a union of Church and State. Therefore, again, the National Reformers favor a union of Church and State. 4. The Rev. T. H. Tatlow, National Reformer, in the recent Missouri Sabbath Convention, admitted that they wanted such a union. His idea was that the Church and the State should exercise “separate jurisdictions.” The church’s jurisdiction should be primary, the State’s secondary. Here we have the church dominating the State. He said the union should be “limited,” something like, I suppose, the union between master and servant. The master does the ruling, and the servant does the obeying. I trust enough proof has been given to convince, at least others, that the National Reformers do favor a union of Church and State, your and their denial to the contrary notwithstanding. 5. You say, “I showed also, that the theocracy of the government of Israel was not much different from what we should have now in any Christian nation.” I am aware that you said as much substantially, but you came far from showing it, or proving it. That is another thing. Your article throughout, permit me to say, was remarkable for want of proof to sustain your positions, and the illustrations used, defective. You say, indeed, that the commonwealth of the Hebrews was a republic, and you italicized the word, making the statement emphatic. You also said, “All governments should be theocracies and republics, not monarchies,” and that “we should have a pure republican theocracy.” You offered no proof at all that the Hebrew commonwealth was a republic. I proved, on the contrary, by citing Bible facts, that no such republic existed there. The proof might be greatly extended. I suggest, sir, that you intersperse your statements with proofs. It will break the dull monotony of assertion. The idea of “a pure republican theocracy” was not derived from any model God ever made. It is National Reform property. You define the term “pure republican theocracy” to be “a government in which the will of God would be the supreme law by the consent and vote of the people.” In ancient Israel the will of God was “the supreme law,” but not by “the consent and vote of the people.” God attended to that matter himself. The people’s business was to obey “the supreme law,” not to make it. It was supreme just the same, whether the people consented to it or not. It was supreme in spite of their consent and vote. And they were absolutely forbidden ever to attempt an amendment by adding to the words written or by diminishing aught from it. A “republican theocracy” is a figment of the National Reformer brain, and the conception is in perfect keeping with National Reform ideas and schemes in general. 6. One of my “additional charges,” you notice, is that the National Reformers would tax the people to support the church. My reply in brief is the words of District Secretary Foster in the Statesman of February 21, 1884, quoted by me in the SENTINEL of July 17, 1889. I might add that, as the Reformers propose to disfranchise dissenters, and to drive all out of the country who oppose them, they might in all probability think it right to make a draw on them before they went. 7. “Marriage is a civil contract, not religious.” The marriage law of ancient Israel was good. “God made it. The people had said amen to it.” “All the people in their happiest time had given consent to it.” Paul, “a correct exponent of Christian law, says, ‘Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,’ and Christians should accept and preach the divine law given to Israel.” “If all the people of the United States were Christians, and were also of one mind as to God’s law of marriage, government—the civil department—should punish nominal Christians who marry heathen wives.” Indeed! But if all the people were Christians and were “of one mind as to God’s law of marriage,” why should they want to break God’s law by marrying heathen wives? And if all the people were Christians where would the heathen wives come from? I suppose the “nominal Christians” would have to import them! It comes to this, as I hinted in my article in SENTINEL, Vol. 4, No. 26, that in their “millennial days” the National Reformers will prohibit marriages with foreigners. You endorse it all. You agree to it. When they get the majority, which is practically all the people, as we can all see, then they will rule with a high hand, and say who shall and who shall not marry. I didn’t come far short of the mark, did I? You have turned the light on and made it all plain. 8. No, I see no flaw in your logic, for the good reason that I don’t see the logic! And as there is no logic, the ergo will have to “go.” Now, my friend, I will leave you for the present. Believe me, I have written in all respect and I believe you have. Let the agitation go on. Would you could cut entirely loose from the National Reformers and “not agree with them” in any of their revolutionary schemes. Their aims are dark, and truly un-American. Truly your friend,
N. J. BOWERS.
Fresno, Cal. The Protestant Right of Private Judgment
THE Protestant doctrine touching the right of private judgment, is not that opposite doctrines may both be true, but it is that there is on the face of the earth no visible body to whose decrees men are bound to submit their private judgment on points of faith.—Macaulay. “Nehemiah the Tirshatha.”—No. 2.
By N. R. JOHNSTON
To N. J. BOWERS:—In my first criticism upon your article in the SENTINEL of the 17th, I showed that National Reformers are not in favor of the union of Church and State as you charge. I showed also that the theocracy of the government of Israel was not much different from what we should have now in any Christian nation. In reply to your additional charges, namely, that National Reformers would tax the people to support the church, and that they would punish marriage with foreigners, I may say,— 1. According to the law of Israel the tithes were paid for the support of the tribe of Levi, which received no landed inheritance. This whole tribe, including the priests, the sons of Aaron, was devoted to the interests of religion and of education. Nehemiah was a civil officer extraordinary. Probably all he did was to incite the rulers to see that the tithe was paid in the interests of both religion and education. 2. Marriage is a civil contract, not religious. The marriage relation may involve or bring with it religious obligations; but the institution is founded in nature, not in grace or religion, and rightly comes under the cognizance of the State or the civil power which makes laws to regulate men in the relation and to punish open transgressors of the civil law of marriage. In Israel the civil law, according to the will of the divine lawgiver, forbade the intermarriage of Israelites with heathen idolaters. The law was good. God made it. The people had said amen to it. It was the law of the nation, “the law of the land,” a wholesome law to which all the people in their happiest time had given consent. So that when men married idolatrous heathen wives they violated their own civil law. Moreover, Paul, the Jewish Christian and a correct expounder of Christian law, says: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” And Christians should accept and preach the divine law given to Israel. Nehemiah enforced their own righteous law upon the trespassing Israelites. He did right. Under similar circumstances if all the people of the United States were Christians and were also of one mind as to God’s law of marriage, government—the civil department—should punish nominal Christians who marry heathen idolaters. I think my logic is good. I see no flaw in it. Do you see any? The ergo of this is twofold: 1. That when Nehemiah arrested Sabbath desecraters he did right. And, 2. That if our people were what they should be, and if government, was what it should be, we should follow Nehemiah’s example.