The American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 8
ACCORDING to the word of Christ, the civil power has nothing to do with either GPage 1
ACCORDING to the word of Christ, the civil power has nothing to do with either God or religion, or with offenses against God or religion. Religion is defined by Webster as “the recognition of God as an object of worship, love and obedience.” Another definition, given by the National Reform Association itself, is “man's personal relation of faith and obedience to God.” If he has no faith at all, and makes no pretensions to obedience to God, that is nothing to the civil government, so long as the man conducts himself civilly. Neither has civil government anything to do with offenses against God; the Lord himself can attend to that. A man is responsible alone to God for the offenses which he commits against God. Civil government has no business to establish a religion, and then make offenses against it criminal; nor has it any business to put itself in the place of God, and presume to declare that an offense against the governmental idea of God is an offense against God. How is the civil government to know whether an act offends God or not? The fact of the matter is, that just as soon as Sunday laws are investigated at all in the light of truth, or justice, or law, it is found that they are inseparable from an established religion—inseparable from a union of Church and State. Derivation of Tennessee Sunday Laws
By W. H. M.
FROM evidence adduced in previous articles on discrepancies in the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, and inconsistencies between its Constitution and code, it is clear that the Constitution of that State is divided against itself, and that statutory precedents have there positively antagonized constitutional principles. Natural justice is eternal and invariable, its expression will be found in abstract principles, axiomatic in form and unvarying in application. These principles are not the development of a native sense of equity natural to the human mind and heart. Except for the gospel of Jesus Christ the concept “All men are created equal,” and its necessary correlative of natural justice, could never have developed into a potent force in human affairs, but would only have existed, if at all, as a dormant philosophic abstraction. Through the gospel came the first ray of hope to the downtrodden, oppressed, and persecuted. It was the gospel which first forced upon the minds of the ruling classes the comprehension of the fact, that liberty was something else than the privilege of the strong to oppress the weak, and compelled them to realize the universal application of the principle of natural justice. But the first advent of Christ and the preaching of his gospel did not usher in the reign of equal rights for all men, neither has it yet eradicated from the human heart the proud arrogance of dominion over his fellows in which man most nearly emulates that Satanic characteristic through which the angels fell; neither will it have done this until that day when His will shall be done upon earth as it is in heaven. The doctrine of the enforcement of the precepts of religion, by human enactment, has been one of the subtlest deceptions of that hypocritical Spirit of all evil, and by which he has “shed the innocent blood of almost all the host of martyrs who have laid down their lives for conscience’ sake.” Not this doctrine but its antithesis will be found in the fundamental law of this land of prophecy, the latest born of the nations, and the last. If then the State of Tennessee has embodied in its statutory law the doctrine of the enforcement of religious precepts by the police power of the State, under authority of civil enactment, it has not derived this doctrine from that bill of rights in which the eternal principles of natural justice are expressed, in language so complete that nothing need be added to it and nothing can be taken from it. If then Tennessee did not derive its religious laws from the gospel principle of governmental law which forms the nucleus of the Constitution of the United States, and with which every one of the children of that Constitution has been endowed, in their bills of rights,—so stated in every case as to be unequivocal in meaning,—then from whence did they arise? These religious laws are of foreign birth; the unmingled equity and justice of American institutions were a later birth and indigenous to American soil. Tennessee derives the treason to God, to human justice, and to native land, which poisons her statutes, by direct inheritance, through the charter of 1584, which marked the initial step in the colonization of America, by which “Elizabeth, by the Grace of God of England, France and Ireland Queen, defender of the faith etc.,” granted to Sir58Walter Raleigh land and countries “not actually possessed of any Christian Prince, nor inhabited by Christian people.” Thus in the first paragraph of the first governmental expression in reference to North Carolina and this Continent is found that old error of the assumption of divine authority by human dignities, and by virtue of that authority assuming the right to ignore the principles of universal justice and discriminate against the “heathen and barbarous” as having no rights which a “Christian” is bound to respect. Under this document it was also granted to Sir Walter Raleigh, to make all necessary laws for the governing of this territory, always excepting that “they be not against the true Christian faith, now professed in the Church of England.” Although under this grant no permanent settlement was made, it fixes the precedent and marks the spirit which inspired the adventurers who came to possess the land, and those from whom they claimed to derive their authority. The grant to Sir Robert Heath, in 1630, by Charles I., was similar in character, as is also the Charter of Carolina, given in 1663 by Charles II., wherein he grants to several of his courtiers who are “excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith” that certain country “only inhabited by some barbarous people, who have no knowledge of Almighty God.” And that he may, in a still greater degree, further the pious purposes of these noble adventurers he grants to them, also, “the patronage and advowsons of all the churches and chapels, which, as Christian religion shall increase within the country, isles, islets, and limits aforesaid, shall happen hereafter to be erected, together with license and power to build and found churches, chapels, and oratories, in convenient and fit places, within the said bounds and limits, and to cause them to be dedicated and consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England, together with all and singular the like, and as ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, royalties, liberties, immunities and franchises, of what kind soever, within the countries, isles, islets, and limits aforesaid. To have, use, exercise and enjoy, and in as ample manner as any bishop of Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore have held,” etc. This charter contains also a toleration clause graciously yielding “indulgencies and dispensations” to dissenters from the doctrines and formalities of the established church but couched in such language as to show conclusively that such an unwelcome element could be but barely “tolerated” and that such could not expect to stand upon an equal civil footing with those who conformed to the established ecclesiasticism. The unbeliever and the heathen are ignored entirely as not necessarily having any civil rights whatever. The charter of 1665, granted again by Charles II., to other of his courtiers embodies the same principles in words quite similar. In 1669 the so called “Fundamental Constitutions,” were framed by John Locke (author of the essay on the human understanding), and adopted for the time as the law of Carolina. This Constitution contains fifteen sections devoted to the regulation of religion and religious questions in Carolina, beginning with this:— No man shall be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina, or to have any estate or habitation within it, that doth not acknowledge a God; and that God is publicly and solemnly to be worshipped.
As the country comes to be sufficiently planted and distributed into fit divisions, it shall belong to the Parliament to take care for the building of churches, and the public maintenance of divines, to be employed in the exercise of religion according to the Church of England; which being the only true and orthodox, and the national religion of all the king’s dominions, is so also of Carolina; and, therefore, it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance, by grant of Parliament.
After laying down the rules and regulations of admittance to church communion, and defining the terms of profession which should constitute a church, under a toleration clause, the following broadly stated conditions of outlawry are laid down:— No person above seventeen years of age shall have any benefit or protection of the law, or be capable of any place of profit or honor, who is not a member of some church or profession, having his name recorded in some one, and but one, religious record at once.
The next step in the governmental progress of Carolina was the Mecklenburg Resolutions of independence in 1775, and the Constitution of 1776, but the code of civil practice developed under such regulations as these, which have been quoted, was retained in spirit, and in some cases to the letter, although directly opposed to the principle of universal equity, which, with the Declaration of Independence and adoption of the Constitution of the United States, became the fundamental law of the land. Although in 1790 Carolina ceded to the United States the Territory of Tennessee, yet it retained its heritage of religious statutes passed under Church and State rule, and applied in the cases of King, and Parker, and others quoted, the statute, contrary to which the indictment charges that the offense of the accused was committed, which is to be found in the act of 1741 enacted by His Excellency Gabriel Johnson Esq. Governor—and after the Revolution retained among the Statutes of North Carolina and incorporated in the laws of Tennessee. In this statute it is asserted that “in well regulated governments effectual care is always taken that the day set apart for public worship be observed and kept holy, all and every person or persons whatsoever shall, on the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, carefully apply themselves to the duties of religion and piety,” etc., therefore all labor, hunting etc., is prohibited on that day. In 1803, after Tennessee was admitted to statehood, the legislature passed “an act more effectually to prevent the profanation of the Lord’s day, commonly called Sabbath.” This act was not different from its predecessor, except in the omission of some compromising verbiage and the addition of a clause intended to effectuate the intent of the act, in that one half the fine levied upon the culprit should go to the informer bringing the action. These statutes are to be found in the laws of Tennessee, Scotts edition, Vol. 1, p. 55, and p. 795. This marks clearly the line of inheritance by which Tennessee comes into possession of her religious laws. The history of their derivation is at hand, and the documentary evidence is sure and unimpeachable. CHRISTIANITY is a most benign thing. Christ ever rebuked the spirit that would call down fire from heaven to devour his enemies, and it is only when his followers have departed from him that they have invoked the sword of civil power to coerce men in spiritual things. KNOWLEDGE of good and evil affords no assurance of a greater love of the one or of a greater hatred of the other than would exist in ignorance. Our first parents no doubt found the devil well enough informed. The archangel Michael and the arch-devil Lucifer may have the same intellectual ability and the same intellectual attainments, but the fidelity of the one and the disobedience of the other make heaven and hell. Unless knowledge ripens into moral force it becomes the tool of selfishness and sin.—Rev. E. P. Marvin. The Kingdom of Christ.
By C. P. B.
As THE SENTINEL has repeatedly shown, the error of the National Reform theory is due to a misapprehension of the teaching of the Scriptures of truth concerning the kingdom of Christ. But there should be no confusion or misapprehension upon this point, for the Scriptures are very plain upon the subject. The Scriptures speak of two thrones, and consequently of two kingdoms (for a throne necessarily implies a kingdom), namely, the throne of grace and the throne of glory. Says the apostle: “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” Heb. 4:16. This throne of grace is the throne from which grace, or favor is dispensed. Says the Scriptures: “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. Heb. 8:1. Christ is now a priest-king, not upon his own, but upon his Father’s throne. He himself makes a clear distinction between the throne he now occupies and that which he will one day take. He says: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcome and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21. Christ also tells when he will take this throne; it is “when the son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.” Matt. 25:31. The kingdom of grace, over which Christ now reigns, and the kingdom of glory, which according to the word of God is still future, are of course very closely related. The purpose of the kingdom of grace is to prepare subjects for the kingdom of glory. There is, however, this important difference, that while the kingdom of grace is temporary, spanning only time from the fall of man to the close of human probation, the kingdom of glory is coincident with the future eternity. The59promise to Christ is, “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Luke 1:32, 33. But it will not be so of the throne of mercy; the time will come when Christ will leave that throne, and then will go forth the decree: “He that is unjust let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy let him be holy still.” Rev. 22:11. Then follow the events so graphically foretold in the word of God. Christ will then appear having “on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” Rev. 19:16. “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” 1 Thess. 4:16. “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” Matt. 24:31. “Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 8:11. “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.” Dan. 7:27. But what then will become of the nations of this earth, and of their wicked rulers and people? Let the word of God answer. To the Son the Father says: “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.” Ps. 2:8, 9. The Revelator thus describes this destruction:— And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshiped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. Rev. 19:19, 20. Describing the scenes that come in connection with the destruction of all things earthly and temporal, the Apostle Peter says:— The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness. Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:10-13. The promise to which the apostle refers is recorded in Isa. 65:17-19:— For, behold I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice forever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. The glory of that new earth, that everlasting kingdom prepared for the people of God “from the foundation of the world,” is thus described by the prophet:— The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God. . . . Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes. . . . And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Isa. 35. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven, and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Such is the description which the Bible gives of Christ’s everlasting kingdom, and of the time and manner of the setting up of that kingdom; and yet National Reformers propose to usher in that kingdom by political action; they would bring Christ to his throne by act of Congress; they would take him by force and make him king! Could folly be greater, or presumption more pronounced? In the very presence of eternal realities, and in view of the plain testimony of the Scriptures of truth, should not men the rather “stand still and see the salvation of the Lord”? Shall Man Enforce God's Law?
By A. O. Tait
During the discussion in Atlanta, Georgia, for the past few months, on the Sunday closing of all business in that city, the Rev. W. P. Smith is reported in the Atlanta Constitution to have made use of the following language:— It was a part of the public political law of the only people of whom Almighty God ever made himself Head and Ruler, to observe and keep the Sabbath as a day of “holy convocation.” Reducing this example of the Creator to the last analysis we find that it is a reasonable hypothesis upon which strong laws should be enforced by the State and Federal Government touching the seventh day. The Sabbath was set apart at the creation for holy purposes for man, for all men for all time, individually and collectively, personally and nationally, a positive law connected with moral principles exacting the public, undisturbed worship of God. The law of God is clear and positive; the law of the State is clear and strong—altogether sufficient—but a vitiated public sentiment tends to set aside the moral and legal obligation of appropriating one day in seven to the worship of God. This sentiment has grown to an alarming extent, until an institution which is prominent in the epitome of religious duties, and as sacred as life, and as old as the world, is in danger and may become of no force, unless the officers of the law and the preacher in the pulpit and the press combine to retrieve from thraldom this sacred institution. The reference to the “only people of whom Almighty God ever made himself Head and Ruler,” of course means the Jewish nation, while God was the recognized head of both their State and Church; and since they are the “only” people over whom God has ruled directly in civil matters, by what system of logic is it possible to conclude that a nation that is not so ruled should, in like manner, enforce the observance of the Sabbath? The fact that God did a certain thing during the theocracy of the old dispensation, is no warrant to man for attempting something similar in a different dispensation and under another form of government entirely. The Jewish nation, during the old dispensation, was identical with the recognized Church of Jehovah. And it must be evident to any candid mind, that God would regulate the affairs of a nation which was also a Church, in a different manner from what he would a nation in which his Church existed as only a small fraction of the whole number of people. There is no evidence in the Bible that the new dispensation will produce a “Christian Nation;” but rather are we told that he sent his followers forth as “sheep in the midst of wolves.” And the Master has further said to us, “Beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; and ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles,” and “Ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death, and ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.” This60language would never convey to any one the idea that a time would come when Christians would dominate and compel their observances and beliefs by civil statutes. Badly Mixed.
By G. E. Fifield
REV. JUSTIN D. FULTON, D.D., author of “A Fight with Rome,” “Why Priests Should Wed,” “Washington in the Lap of Rome,” and numerous other works of like nature, is perhaps regarded by the public, as one of the most firm and fearless enemies to the aggressive and ambitious designs of Rome in this country. As one listens to, or reads his burning words, he can but be convinced of his earnestness, and perhaps of his sincerity; but the question may often arise in one’s mind, What is all this fuss about? What is the Doctor fighting so fiercely? Is it Romanism or is it Romanists? Romanism is, and always has been, and by its very nature, must always remain, the enemy of civil and religious liberty; and hence of intellectual and spiritual development. Romanists are the poor unfortunate children of this false, paternal system. To fight Romanism for the purpose of liberating the Romanist, is a noble work; but to fight the Romanist is to attack those who are already spiritually and intellectually down, and who, therefore, are the very ones who most need our sympathetic help. It must never be forgotten that Zwingle in Switzerland, Calvin in Geneva, Henry VIII. in England, and Knox in Scotland, all made the great mistake of espousing the very principles of Romanism with which to fight the Romanist; and thus, in their respective lands, they ruined or retarded the real Reformation. Romanism is a union of Church and State—a spiritual despotism. All the black record of the Papacy, is simply the logical, and unavoidable result of that union. To fight Romanism successfully, the Romanist must be taught this fact, by precept and example. The United States is the only nation that has ever, even in theory, totally separated Church and State. The people of the United States are the only people who, as a people, have ever professed to depend upon the power of God only in the fight with the Papacy, and with all iniquity. It follows that the true Christian American stands on a vantage ground in this conflict with the prince of darkness. He needs only to be strong in his faith toward God, and ever true to the principles of American liberty. He must not become a Romanist to fight Rome, for this is to fail. Dr. Fulton has seemed to realize these facts at times, but in his attempt to carry them out he has become badly mixed. From pages 219 and 220 of “Washington in the Lap of Rome,” I quote the following:— THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO RECOGNIZE THE CHURCH. If the Court of Special Sessions can commit to a Roman Catholic institution, children between seven and fourteen years of age, as idle, truant, and vicious or homeless, then the State can put its neck into the yoke Rome has been framing for many years. . . . The law says NO CONNECTION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State for all mankind. The Constitution of the United States, in providing for religious liberty, expressly declares that no restraint should be exercised, that Congress should make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; but recognizing the principle introduced to the notice of mankind by Roger Williams, who repudiated toleration, because the right to tolerate implied the right to persecute; and who would not accept as a favor from man what had been given him as a right by God. This is Americanism not, Romanism. It is not only Americanism, but it is good religion, and good politics. But strange as it may seem, on the next two pages of this same book, and written by the same pen, I find the following:— Put the Bible back where it belongs. Let it become a text-book for the children of America. . . . The Bible ought to be made a text-book in every institution helped by the State, because of what the Bible does for the State. If the Romanists do not like it let them dislike it. Speaking of the idle, and vicious, and homeless, he says, “They are children of the State. Give them religious instructions by giving them access to the word of God.” In all this, of course, as the context plainly shows, the Doctor means the Protestant Bible, to be read by Protestant teachers to all, Catholic and Protestant alike, in the State schools. He means also, Protestant “religious instruction” to be given by Protestants to all, especially to the children of Catholics, in the State schools. And yet, it was only two pages back that the Doctor informed us with much enthusiasm and apparent sincerity, putting his words in large capitals, that, “the State has no right to recognize the Church,” and again, that all worship shall ever be free, and “without discrimination or preference.” This same Doctor is now arguing his preference for the Protestant religion, and the Protestant Bible, and that these, instead of being left “free” for the choice of every one, shall be forcibly taught in the State schools, and every tax-paying Catholic shall thus be forced to support what he does not believe, and worse yet, shall have his children taught it. Verily, Dr. Fulton’s ideas of liberty, and of preference, and of freedom from all discrimination, must be badly mixed. And the argument in support of all this is the old pagan idea that religion is a benefit to the State. True, religion, supported only by the power of God, and taught only by the warm willing-hearted of his people, is a benefit to the State. But any religion that has to be taught compulsorily by the State, and that depends for its support upon taxes extorted from those who do not believe it, is a curse to the State and the people. Again Dr. Fulton says on page 227:— Resist this devil of Romanism and it will flee. Put the Bible back where it belongs. . . . See to it that the children of the State are given religious instruction, so that they shall know the chief doctrines of the Bible. Let there be no sectarianism taught and no antagonism engendered. One can but smile to see this positive contradiction in almost the same sentence. Every one knows that there is not one of the “chief doctrines of the Bible,” that is not a basis of sectarian division, and that different sects understand them differently. The Bible itself is a basis of sectarian division between Catholics and Protestants, and between all Christians and the Jews and agnostics. Viewed in the light of past history, the idea of teaching these doctrines to all, and compelling all alike to support their teaching in the State schools, and doing all this without engendering any antagonism, is supremely ridiculous and absurd. The very attempt to do such a thing, would, as in the fourth century, engender such an antagonism of sect with sect, that council after council would be demanded to settle the controversy; and these councils could only result, as then, in compromise after compromise between the contending factions, till if anything could precipitate a religious war upon this Nation, that would. The fact is that all this advocated by Dr. Fulton is Romanism. It is precisely the same principle that evolved all the marvelous mechanism of the Romish hierarchy, and so cursed the world for centuries. After this it will not seem surprising that in the same book on page 49, Dr. Fulton quotes the Blair Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States, and indorses its principles. Every reader of THE SENTINEL knows that that resolution is, in principle, Romanism; and that, if passed, it would build a new Papacy out of the Protestant churches of the United States, even if there was not a papist in the Nation, in precisely the same way that the Papacy was built out of the Christianity of the fourth century. Now, however, as the Papacy is a far greater political power in this land, than any other professedly religious organization, for a Protestant to advocate the putting of religion into the control of the State, as Mr. Blair and Dr. Fulton certainly do, is simply to advise Protestantism to strengthen the hands of the Papacy. When the teaching of the Christian(?) religion is made compulsory in the State schools, the State will then claim and exercise the right to decide what is the Christian religion. What will then be called Christianity, will not be a matter for the discussion of each individual conscience, guided in its search after truth by the Spirit of God; but it will be a matter for the dictation of the strongest political power61 in the Nation. The strongest political power, so far as religious organizations are concerned, is the Papacy and the Papacy would very largely dictate such creeds, and control such schools. Thus Dr. Fulton is convicted of blindly espousing the cause of Romanism, while still remaining the champion in the fight against Romanists. Separation of Church and State means, to him, merely separation of the Roman Church and the State. That “the State has no right to recognize the Church,” means only that it has no right to recognize the Roman Catholic Church; and the “free exercise of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,” means the free exercise of the Protestant religion by Protestants, with the right and the power to force that religion upon the children of Catholics, and then compel the Catholics to pay for it. What wonderful ignorance of the Golden Rule! Who needs to be told that this is the spirit of Romanism, and that this spirit clothed with the power of the State would persecute all who oppose it, as much as the Papacy would? G. E. FIFIELD. That Steamboat.
By A. E. Place
LAST summer a little pleasure steamer, capable of carrying perhaps fifteen or twenty persons, passed through Fulton, New York, in the canal, on Sundays, on its way to picnic grounds up the river. This became a shocking affair to some of the members of the Auxiliary American Sabbath Union of that place. Therefore the Union was called together, and the subject introduced in the form of a question:— Did any one see or hear that steamboat yesterday? No one had seen or heard it. In fact, any one to see or hear it must needs be down at the canal; for, six rods away no one would know that it was passing. This is but one more evidence of how easily some people are disturbed and shocked on Sunday, and what forms the basis of some pleas for Sunday laws. But the secret is that that boat had been known to take from the village, and the church, some professors of religion, and others, who, of course, would not have gone from the church or village had it not been for that unsanctified, pleasure-seeking steamboat. Hence the boat must be dealt with. What for?—Presumably to keep these otherwise good people from being forced to go on excursions, and thereby lose the sermons and church privileges on the “American Sabbath.” I believe that these American Sabbath Union clergymen could do more real good for their church and their country in one week of real earnest, Christ-like work with the hearts of these individuals, who have not religion enough to lead them to church, or keep them away from the pleasure steamboat on Sunday, than they can in a lifetime of trying to legislate away the civil rights of American citizens. The Church to-day needs more of the power of God and less of the power of the State; and then she would have more power with the people, and the little steamboat down in the canal would not disturb the church on the hill. A. E. Place.