Is Christ King of the Nations?
By James White
IN the February number of the AMERICAN SENTINEL we published an article entitled, “National Reform Principles Exemplified,” in which it was proved, by quotations from the publications of the “Reformers,” that their professed intention is to “enthrone Christ,” to “bring him into his kingdom,” to “accept him as the nation’s king,” to make this Republic “one of the kingdoms of our Lord,” etc. They assert that Christ is, by virtue of his office, king of the nations, but that this nation is depriving him of his right, in not acknowledging, in the Constitution, his kingship and sovereignty. They affirm that he is constituted king of the nations by virtue of his mediatorial office. This we emphatically deny. Here the issue is squarely joined. Their error is strenuously held and taught by the Covenanters; it is fundamental with the National Reformers—the corner-stone of their system. They endeavor to uphold their error by fallacious reasonings and by erroneous interpretations of prophecy. We will notice these points. 1. Fallacies in reasoning. In an article in the Christian Nation, September 15, 1886, are the following words:— “It is objected that Christ is anointed king of Zion; he is the organic Head of the church, only; how then can he, as mediator, be king of nations? This, to some, seems to be an unsolvable problem. We will, however, refer the reader to the reign of Solomon for a solution (see 1 Kings 4:20–25). While Solomon was the proper organic head of the kings of Israel alone, yet it is recorded that ‘he reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt; they brought presents and served Solomon all the days of his life.’ If Solomon could rule in a twofold capacity as king of Zion and king of nations, unquestionably Christ Jesus is competent to exercise dominion in the same manner.” The fatal defect in this reasoning is, that there is not the shadow of a likeness between the reign of Solomon and the present reign of Christ. The writer starts out to meet the query, How can Christ be both mediator and king of nations? and proposes to answer it by referring to the reign of Solomon, who never was mediator at all! He solves nothing; he does not touch the question. Uzziah, a king on the throne of Solomon, once essayed to act as priest, and the Lord smote him with leprosy (2 Chron. 26:16–21); and so would he have smitten Solomon if he had attempted to intrude upon the office of the priests, for that was given to the family of Aaron, and the penalty of death was threatened against anyone who trespassed upon it. Num. 3:10. So inconclusive are their reasonings. Another article in the Nation, which is highly commended by the editor, speaks of Christ as follows:— “He is not divided; he is at once a prophet, a priest, and a king. The prophet is a king, and speaks with authority. On the cross Christ is a king, accepts an address as a king—‘Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom’—and answers as a king—‘To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.’” This is equally faulty, as to its reasoning and to the facts. Christ was filling the office of prophet on earth, but not of priest or king. Paul, to the Hebrews, makes an intended argument on the priesthood of Christ, and sums up as follows:— “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law; who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” Heb. 8:1–5. He has before declared that Christ was not a priest after the order of Aaron, but of Melchizedek, and, according to the flesh, he was of the same tribe as Uzziah, who was smitten of the Lord for essaying to act as priest, “of which tribe,” says Paul, “no man gave attendance at the altar.” The points in the apostle’s summary are these: (1) Christ’s priesthood is in Heaven, in a sanctuary not made by man. (2) He was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah. (3) Therefore, he could not be a priest on earth; he could not officiate in the sanctuary where earthly priests officiated. (4) The earthly sanctuary and service were but an example and shadow of heavenly things. As is said again in chap. 9:24: “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands; which are the figures of the true; but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” The earthly priests, service, and sanctuary were types; if Christ had officiated as a priest on earth, he must have acted as a type of his own work in Heaven! But argument on this point is not necessary; the words of Paul are plain, and must be decisive. Christ was not, and could not be, a priest on earth. Neither was he a king on earth. His34kingship or reign was always spoken of prospectively. The very petition relied upon by the writer quoted above, disproves his point; “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” If he were reigning a king at that time—if he had already come into his kingdom—then the language of the petition was very inappropriate. He was born of the lineage of David, but he has not yet taken his throne and his kingdom. Let us examine the Scriptures on this point. In Luke 19 it is recorded that Jesus “spoke a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.” He represented himself thus: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. . . . And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom,” then he reckoned with his servants, and destroyed his enemies. Of course the “far country” into which he went to receive his kingdom, is Heaven. He receives it from the hand of his Father. The kingdom is on the earth; here he commits the talents to his servants; here his citizens reject his authority; here he will come to reckon with his servants; here he will destroy his enemies. Here he had to come to take “on him the seed of Abraham,” and to be born heir to David’s throne. But the gift he receives in Heaven, and has not received it yet. Certainly he did not have it on the cross nor in the grave. It is also proved by the prophet Daniel that he had to go into the presence of his Father to receive the kingdom. This opens the second point. “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away.” This proves that he shall receive his dominion at the throne of the Ancient of days, in Heaven. But that scene is laid after, not before, his resurrection and ascension. By referring to verses 9, 10, it is seen that this part of the vision of Daniel is fulfilled in the time of the Judgment: “The Judgment was set, and the books were opened.” And with this agree the words of Rev. 11:15–18. The announcement of verse 15,—“The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever,”—is much quoted by National Reformers, but they utterly ignore the fact that it is made under the seventh trumpet, which closes up this dispensation. In this chronology of this trumpet, expositors are well agreed. It is also located by verse 18: “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” There can be no question about the Judgment; it is not a past event. When he will give reward, Jesus himself informs us: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” Matt. 16:27. And again: “Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” Luke 14:14. In Rev. 11:18 the expression is used, “and thy wrath is come.” This leads us to quote again from a writer in the Christian Nation of March 10, 1886. He said:— “The careless reader of the word of God seems to see two opposite and irreconcilable representations of the divine character. On the one hand, severe holiness, exact justice, supreme law, resistless wrath; on the other hand, winning patience, tender mercy, infinite love, boundless grace. Even the Saviour has a twofold character—himself a paradox, whose most startling contradiction is the wrath of the Lamb.” The writer of the above has proved himself a very careless reader of the word. The careful reader of the book of Revelation knows that it is given in lines or series of symbols, each and all culminating in one point, the Judgment, the coming of Christ, and the end of this world. Turning to Rev. 6:14–17 we read:— “And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” Here we see the condition of things on the earth when the day of the wrath of the Lamb comes. To claim that the day of his wrath comes during his priesthood and mediation is the sheerest absurdity; it is a gross perversion of the Scriptures. But it seems that no absurdity is too great to be set forth by these model Reformers. Paul’s words of hope and promise to the Thessalonians also locate this day of wrath: “Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled [to recompense] rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction,” etc. 2 Thess. 1:6–9. No truth is more clearly taught than this, that Christ will come to reward his saints and to punish his enemies. But the “day of his wrath” does not come—he will not appear to take vengeance on his foes—while he is mediator or intercessor. There is no paradox in the case. It is simply a question of time, as to when he fulfills the several offices assigned to him by his Father. To forward their illusive theories and schemes, the National Reformers present the work of Christ, and even himself, as a paradox—a “most startling contradiction”—when the contradiction is all their own. We must trace a little further the gift of the nations to Christ. See Ps. 2:7–9. It says:— “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” He does not convert them; he breaks them and dashes them in pieces. How is this? He does not receive the gift until the Judgment, until his mediation is closed, when “the day of salvation” is ended, and the “day of his wrath is come.” That we are not mistaken in this view is further and fully proved by the following scriptures:— “The Lord [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adonai], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Ps. 110:1. He sits at his Father’s right hand—he is sitting there now—as priest or mediator, and will continue to sit there until the time comes to take authority over the nations, to put off the robes of his priesthood, and to “put on the garments of vengeance.” Isa. 59:17. See Paul’s comment on this: “But this man [Christ], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.” Heb. 10:12, 13. That is, till his foes be put under his feet; till the heathen and the uttermost parts of the earth shall be given to him; until the kingdoms of this world are become his. But, mark; while he is sitting on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, a priest or mediator, he is expecting till his foes are made his footstool. He is looking forward to the fulfillment of the promise of the Father, to give him the kingdom and the dominion under the whole heaven. We think none can fail to see the harmony of the testimony on this point. The nations are not yet given to Christ, and he will never receive the sovereignty by the votes of men; he cannot be “enthroned” by legislative enactments. The proof in this article is complete in itself, yet there is much to be said in confirmation of this view, and we will resume it next month. J. H. W. Using the Ballot for the Glory of God
By Editor
In the Christian Statesman, January 20, was published an article by Dr. T. K. Davis on “Using the Ballot for the Glory of God,” in which he inquires, “Could any method of confessing and honoring Christ be more significant and emphatic than to vote for him?” And the italics are his. This article the Statesman says “ought to waken earnest reflection in multitudes of Christian minds.” We think it ought; especially in view of the National Reform efforts to make this the popular method of “confessing and honoring Christ.” National Reform Prescriptions
In the Christian Nation, February 9, 1887, Rev. W. J. Coleman says that Senator Sherman is credited with favoring an appropriation of one hundred millions of dollars for coast defenses, and then remarks as follows:— “The hundred million which the Senator would expend on earth-works and great guns, if put at interest, would yield as much every year as all the Christians in the United States give to foreign missions. And why would not that be a wiser way to expend it? It would soften our hearts at home until we would not want to fight, and it would raise our reputation abroad so that our neighbors would not want to fight us.”
What a wonderful efficacy there must be in National Reform prescriptions. Why don’t some of these Reformers persuade the European nations to adopt this method of raising their reputation? It would be a splendid missionary triumph if they only could do it. THE SENTINEL frequently receives letters from people who want it to advocate this, that, or the other reform. Now we heartily sympathize with all true reformers. We know that intemperance is a horrible curse, that the devil has agents circulating vile literature in every place possible, and that unnamable vice is stalking through the land. But there are thousands of good people who by voice and pen are working with might and main to check these evils, while the AMERICAN SENTINEL is the only paper in existence whose sole object is to combat a rapidly-growing movement which, if successful, would make us a nation of slaves, not simply slaves in body, but what is far worse, slaves in conscience. And so while we bid all true reformers God-speed, we must confine ourselves to exposing the sophistries of those who under the name of reform would rob us of all our liberties, THE National Reformers insist that the law must give the people the rest of the Sabbath. And not only give it to them, but compel them to take it. By the authority of civil law they must take the Sabbath rest whether or not they wish it. But in commenting on the meeting of locomotive engineers, held on a Sunday, the Statesman said:— “Have they yet to learn that the Sabbath cannot be had for rest, unless we keep it sacred for worship?” By putting “this and that together,” we shall learn that it is the intention of our model Reformers to give us a legal or compulsory Sabbath35rest, “sacred for worship.” This is the plain evident meaning of the language. They will compel all classes to take a Sabbath rest, but they cannot have it for rest “unless they keep it sacred for worship.” Hence, they will compel all to keep a day “sacred for worship.” This is the inevitable logic of their position. They may, indeed, make a law to compel all classes to rest from labor on a certain day, and they may make a law that all shall attend places of worship on that day. But, alas, they cannot make them worship. They may enforce some “form of godliness,” but “the power thereof” is beyond human legislation. They may compel men to act the hypocrite, but they cannot compel them to be devotional or worshipful. But we are fully aware that nothing is too wild for such theorists to attempt. National Reform Interpretations of Scripture.
By Alonzo T. Jones
As the leaders of the National Reform propose to make themselves the interpreters of Scripture “on moral and civil, as well as on theological and ecclesiastical points,” under the Government of the United States, it becomes important to the American people to know somewhat about the National Reform manner and method of interpretation. As the people of this nation are asked to amend their Constitution so as to open the way for these men to make themselves the national interpreters of Scripture, the people ought to know what qualifications these self-nominated candidates possess for the high dignity to which their laboring souls aspire. That we may do our part toward enlightening the people on this subject, we propose, as far as possible, to give examples of National Reform interpretations of Scripture. The Scriptures clearly enjoin the obligation of subjection to civil government, of obedience to civil authorities: “To be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates,” and to pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life.” In Romans 13:1–10 this duty is set forth at greater length than in any other one place in the Bible. The first verse reads thus: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.” In the Christian Statesman, June 5, 1884, there is quite an extended comment—more than a page—upon this text, written by Rev. David Gregg—the same who was lately installed as pastor of the Park Street Church, Boston. Mr. Gregg interprets this verse as follows:— “The authorities that be are ordained of God.” “There is no authority but of God. All authorities that are not of God and are not in allegiance to him are usurpers. This is a self-evident truth, i. e., if it be a fact that ‘there is no authority but of God.’” There stands the plain declaration of the word of God that “there is no power but of God.” At this Mr. Gregg gravely observes that all powers that are not of God are usurpers, and that this is a self-evident truth, i. e., if it be a fact that there is no power but of God. God. Well it certainly is a fact, for the word of God says it. Therefore, it being a fact that there is no power but of God, then how can there be any powers that are not of God? As the powers that be are ordained of God, and as there is no power but of God, it is impossible that there can be any power but of God. Therefore Mr. Gregg’s comment amounts to just this and no more: All powers that are not powers are usurpers. We think it altogether likely that that is “self-evident.” But, more than this, the National Reformers will not admit that the powers that be are ordained of God. Although the Scripture says as plainly as language can say anything that “the powers that be are ordained of God;” and although the whole Bible bears out the plain truth and sense of the statement, the National Reformers “interpret” it to mean, the powers that ought to be are ordained of God. And as the National Reform power is what ought to be, it follows that National Reform is ordained of God, and when it shall secure that power it will be exercised by a right absolutely divine. That such is the National Reform interpretation is shown by Dr. Gregg’s own words. In telling what Paul was doing in writing the words of Romans 13:1–10, he says:— “He was giving us God’s ideal of civil government. He was holding up a picture of what civil government ought to be. He was teaching Christians what they should strive to make Governments.” The object was “to furnish then, as now, a standard by which to try existing Governments. It gives us God’s ideal of civil government. If Governments conform to this divine ideal, then we are bound to recognize them as divine ordinances, and to give them conscientious support and homage, but if they do not, we are bound to inaugurate moral reforms and revolutions which will conform them to God’s ideal.” By this style of interpretation, therefore, we are to understand that when the Lord speaks of the powers that be, he means the powers “that ought to be.” When the word of God directs every soul to be subject to the higher powers, it means that every soul shall erect a tribunal and sit in judgment upon those powers. When God directs that we shall not resist the power but shall be subject for conscience’ sake, he means that we “are bound to inaugurate revolutions.” Where the Scripture sets forth the duty to be law-abiding citizens, leading quiet and peaceable lives, the National Reform interpretation of it demands that men, Christians too, shall be revolutionists, with their eyes constantly on the Government, weighing it in the National Reform balances, and watching for opportunities to inaugurate revolutions. In short, whereas the Scripture directs that men shall be Christians and law-abiding citizens, the National Reform interpretation of the Scripture demands that they shall be scheming politicians and revolutionists. Now could any interpretation possibly be further from the truth of the Scripture, or more directly opposed to the text under consideration? But we are not surprised at it; indeed we do not see how it could be otherwise, in view of the fact that the National Reform conception of the Saviour of the world is that he is a “divine politician.” With such views of Christ, it would be impossible to hold any other views of the duty of the followers of Christ than such as are expressed in the above interpretations. The Powers that Be Are Ordained of God.
By Alonzo T. Jones
We stated above that the whole Bible bears out the plain truth and the obvious sense of the statement that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” We have not space to present all the texts that might be given in direct proof of it, but we shall give enough to show that Paul when he wrote this declaration was only doing as was his wont, reasoning out of the Scriptures. Everybody knows that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon, and that he was a heathen. Yet God spake by his prophet directly to Nebuchadnezzar, and said, “Thou, O King, art a king of kings; for the God of Heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all.” Dan. 2:37, 38. Through the prophet Jeremiah, the Lord sent yokes and bonds to the kingdoms of Edom, and Moab, and Ammon, and Tyre, and Sidon, by the messengers that came from these kings to Jerusalem, and with them also he sent this message: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Thus shall ye say unto your masters; I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; . . . and all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come; and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.” Jer. 27:4–8. Now as Nebuchadnezzar was a heathen, and as his kingdom was a heathen kingdom, we can hardly think that even the National Reformers would pronounce his authority to be exactly “God’s ideal of civil government.” Yet there can be no shadow of doubt that the power possessed by Nebuchadnezzar and exercised by him over all the kingdoms and peoples round about, was a power that was ordained of God, for the word of God says so, and said so to him. In the time of Nebuchadnezzar the power that was was ordained of God. Nor was it only in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The word of the Lord by Jeremiah asserted not only that this power was36given to him, but to “his son and his son’s son” as well; and this succession covered the whole period of the kingdom of Babylon from Nebuchadnezzar to its fall. Therefore the proof is positive that the power of the Empire of Babylon was ordained of God. The grandson of Nebuchadnezzar—Belshazzar—in the midst of the riotous feast of Tammuz, was told by the prophet of the Lord, “God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it;” and, “Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” The commander who led the forces of the Medes and Persians was Cyrus the Persian. And of him the Lord had said: “Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.” “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure.” Isa. 45:1; 44:28. When Babylon fell, the rule of the Medo-Persian Empire fell first to Darius the Mede, instead of to Cyrus. And the angel Gabriel said to Daniel, “I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.” Dan. 11:1. Therefore the word of God is clear that the power of the Medo-Persian government was ordained of God. But not to multiply instances by noting them in detail, we will quote the scripture that sums up the whole subject in few words: “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever; for wisdom and might are his; and he changeth the times and the seasons; he removeth kings, and setteth up kings.” Dan. 2:20, 21. “The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” Dan. 4:25. These texts assuredly demonstrate the principle declared by Paul in Rom. 13:1, that “there is no power but of God;” and that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” But if these texts should not be enough to demonstrate it, then we may add the crucial text of all Scripture. When Christ stood before Pilate, “Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.” John 19:10, 11. The demonstration is complete, therefore, that the words of Rom. 13:1, are a statement of fact and not of theory; that “the powers that be are ordained of God;” and that “there is no power but of God.” As the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will; when he has given the power to whom he will, whether to Babylon, to Medo-Persia, to Grecia, to Rome, to England, or to the United States; whether that will be direct or permissive, who shall say that that power is not of him? and who shall say that that is not the power that ought to be? And to such powers Christians are taught to be respectful, quiet, peaceable, obedient subjects, and not revolutionists. The following from Macaulay is to the point:—
“The powers which the apostle . . . pronounces to be ordained of God, are not the powers that can be traced back to a legitimate origin, but the powers that be. When Jesus was asked whether the chosen people might lawfully give tribute to Cæsar, he replied by asking the questioners, not whether Cæsar could make out a pedigree derived from the old royal house of Judah, but whether the coin which they scrupled to pay into Cæsar’s treasury came from Cæsar’s mint, in other words, whether Cæsar actually possessed the authority and performed the functions of a ruler. “It is generally held, with much appearance of reason, that the most trustworthy comment on the text of the Gospels and Epistles is to be found in the practice of the primitive Christians, when that practice can be satisfactorily ascertained; and it so happened that the times during which the church is universally acknowledged to have been in the highest state of purity were times of frequent and violent political change. One at least of the apostles appears to have lived to see four emperors pulled down in a little more than a year. Of the martyrs of the third century a great proportion must have been able to remember ten or twelve revolutions. Those martyrs must have had occasion often to consider what was their duty towards a prince just raised to power by a successful insurrection. That they were, one and all, deterred by the fear of punishment from doing what they thought right, is an imputation which no candid infidel would throw on them. Yet, if there be any proposition which can with perfect confidence be affirmed touching the early Christians, it is this, that they never once refused obedience to any actual ruler on account of the illegitimacy of his title. At one time, indeed, the supreme power was claimed by twenty or thirty competitors. Every province from Britain to Egypt had its own Augustus.
. . . Yet it does not appear that, in any place, the faithful had any scruple about submitting to the person who, in that place, exercised the imperial functions. While the Christian of Rome obeyed Aurelian, the Christian of Lyons obeyed Tetricus, and the Christian of Palmyra obeyed Zenobia. ‘Day and night’—such were the words which the great Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, addressed to the representative of Valerian and Gallienus—‘day and night do we Christians pray to the one true God for the safety of our emperors.’”—History of England, chap. 14. These, however, were law-abiding subjects and citizens, and not National Reform revolutionists. National Reform Principles Despotic.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
We have received an address which a gentleman of Quincy, Mass., has addressed to the Legislature of that State. The writer strongly objects to making the Sunday laws any less strict, or to making concessions in favor of any, and says:— “The greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens, demands that the Sunday laws shall remain unchanged. They may be slightly oppressive in some respects, but the Legislature which is capable of pruning them just enough to make them perfect, and stopping at that point, has, in my humble opinion, yet to be elected. Better let well enough alone.” This is the idea that underlies all National Reform would-be legislation,—the idea that laws are simply for the majority, that if the majority are satisfied it matters not if a few are oppressed. Such an idea of law is in harmony with despotism, but not with a republican, or any other just form of government. A despotism is simply the rule of the majority, only the majority of strength is lodged in one man. But the principle is the same, no matter whether the majority of strength be lodged in one man, or whether the numerical majority has the majority of strength. Five hundred men have no more right to unite to oppress one man, than one man has to oppress five hundred men. It is not true that a just law is ever oppressive to a few. A law that does injustice to one man, is an unjust law. We heartily agree with President Cleveland, who, in a recent interview on the land laws, said:— “If by any construction of a law, seeming injustice is done to the humblest farmer in the furthest corner of the land, then that law ought to be changed, and changed at once.” If a law oppresses a single honest man, it has in it the elements of oppression, and so is an unjust and oppressive law. Just laws cannot by any possibility be made to oppress an upright man. This is the principle upon which our laws are framed. It is a legal maxim that it is better to let a guilty man escape than to punish an innocent man. This does not imply that a just law will sanction the escape of a guilty man, but it simply recognizes the fact that men are fallible, and are liable to improperly execute even a just law; and therefore it provides that the failure, if there be any failure, shall lean to the side of mercy. The fact that National Reformers claim that majorities should have their way, even though it might oppress some citizens, shows that if they should gain control oppression would certainly follow. Let us beware of a despotism, whatever form it may assume.