Review and Herald, Vol. 42, No. 3. (7/1/1873)

Review and Herald

Jul 1, 1873

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 1, 1873

OBJECTIONS TO THE SABBATH ANSWERED.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

TWENTY-THIRD OBJECTION.

There is no holy day in the gospel age. To fully answer this objection would require a complete discussion of the Sabbath question, from beginning to end. Of course, I cannot enter into that here. Really, I have already answered all the passages relied upon to prove that theory. It only remains, now, to bring forward some of the many positive proofs that there is a sacred day now, the same as in other ages. Very much might be said on this, but I will notice each point briefly.

1. Why did God rest on the seventh day? Look at some plainly stated facts. (1.) God worked six days. (2.) He rested the seventh day. (3.) For these reasons, he blessed and sanctified that day. Gen. 2: 1–3; Ex. 20: 8–11. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Could not God have made the world as well in one day as in six? Certainly. Why work just six days, then? Did God need rest himself on the seventh day? Was he tired? No; for he neither fainteth nor is weary. Why, then, did he rest on that day? There could be only one reason, and that is an obvious one, viz.: He did it to lay the foundation of, to set the example for, an institution which man, whom he had just made, would greatly need to observe. Hence, says Christ, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Mark 2: 27. Did this action of the Creator relate simply to the Jewish age? Does it not relate to all ages alike? We leave our opponents to answer.

2. The facts on which the Sabbath was founded still exist. These were, first, that God worked the first six days, and, second, that he rested on the seventh. It is just as much a fact now as it was six thousand years ago, that God worked on the first day of the week, the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. God’s resting on the seventh day made that day his rest-day—his Sabbath day. Sabbath means rest; Sabbath day, or rest-day. Is it not just as much a fact now as it was six thousand years ago, that the seventh day is God’s rest-day—God’s Sabbath day? Yes. This fact remains the same through all ages, and will, while the earth stands.

3. The Sabbath day is a memorial of creation. One of the prominent designs of the Sabbath was to commemorate God’s creative work. The stupendous work of the Almighty, in creating the heavens and the earth, is everywhere appealed to by prophets and apostles, as an evidence that there is a living God. See Jer. 10: 10–12; Acts 17: 22–25; Rom. 1: 20. To ever commemorate this great event, the Sabbath was set up at the close of creation. God worked six days and rested on the seventh. So every time man did the same he brought up afresh that work, showed his faith in it, and his obedience to the Creator. Thus the Lord says, “It [the Sabbath] is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” Ex. 31: 17. A sign is a memorial, as may be seen by Josh. 4: 1–7. So in the Decalogue, God gives the reason why the Sabbath must be kept. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,” &c. So, also, Gen. 2: 1–3.

If, therefore, we abolish the Sabbath, we have no memorial of creation. Why should there be a memorial of this in one age and not in another? What did the Jews have to do with creation, more than we? Indeed, the farther we come from creation, the more important is it that we preserve a memorial of it. Here, then, is another reason why the Sabbath should be observed still.

4. Sabbath given to Adam. That the Sabbath was given to Adam, is clear from all the facts in the case; but we have not room to argue it here. Jesus said it was made for man. This is evidently used in its broadest sense, meaning man as a race, as no limitation is given. We have a plain record of its making and sanctification in Eden. Gen. 2: 1–3. Every subsequent mention of it refers us back there for its origin. Adam was the head and representative of the whole human race; so that, in giving it to him, God virtually gave it to all men who are the children of Adam. This would include us.

5. In Eden. The fact that the Sabbath was given to man in his unfallen state, in his Eden home, is another evidence that God designed it to be a permanent institution. It came before types and shadows, and all these temporary things, were introduced.

6. In Eden restored. What adds greater weight to the above remarks, is the fact that the Sabbath is to be eternally observed in the new-earth state; that is, when the curse is removed, and Eden restored, and man immortal. Isa. 65: 17; 66: 22, 23. “For behold I create new heavens and a new earth,” &c. “For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” How long will the new earth remain? Eternally. How long, then, will the Sabbath be kept? Forever. Is it reasonable, then, to suppose that God would have it dropped out here for a few hundred years, and yet kept on both sides of us? No.

7. All need a day of rest. If one of the laws of God is more in harmony with nature than another, it is the Sabbath. The physical nature of men and working animals absolutely demands a day of rest. Experience has proved this beyond a doubt. An abundance of trials which have been made show that either man or beast will accomplish less work in a year, by working seven days in a week, than he will by working only six and resting the seventh. Simply resting nights is not enough. Those who work continuously, seven days each week, soon become jaded out, lose their natural energy and ambition, their pride and self-respect, become gloomy and careless, and do not do their work well. They lose their health, and die prematurely. Gillfillan, in his book on “The Sabbath,” gives many interesting cases where mills, factories, &c., have been tried, first, by running them for a length of time seven days each week, then, six days a week; and invariably it was found that, in a year’s time, they would accomplish more work and have it done better than when working seven days per week. The statements of eminent physicians corroborate these conclusions. Indeed, any one of observation and reflection knows them to be facts. And above all, we have the seal of God set to this fact by instituting the Sabbath, and commanding men to rest every seventh day and allow their servants and animals to do the same. In doing so, he only made provision for one of the plainest demands of nature. Has man’s physical and mental nature changed since then? No; it is the same now as then, only he is more feeble, if anything, and hence needs the Sabbath rest more than ever. We say, then, that nature itself demands a Sabbath day, and hence it is not reasonable that God has taken it from us.

8. A day of worship is needed. No requirement of God is more reasonable than that men should regularly devote a stated day to his worship. All things belong to God; everything was made for his honor and pleasure. Rev. 4: 11. Man was made to glorify him. Every bounty we have comes from God. It is right and reasonable that we should remember, love, praise, and adore, God. The history of the human race proves that man is inclined to neglect these solemn duties, to forget God and neglect his worship. Constantly surrounded with the things of this world, pressed with earthly cares and labors to provide for our constant wants, the danger is that we let these things wholly absorb our thoughts, so that we forget our Heavenly Father.

Reasonable, then, was the act of God in giving to man six days out of seven to labor and provide for his earthly wants, and to reserve the seventh to himself, during which man must lay aside all these worldly things, and spend the day in devotion to his God. This gives him an opportunity to draw off his mind from material things, and refresh his soul with calm, quiet, and undisturbed devotions. This gives him time for careful study of the word of God, for prayer, for meditation, for singing the songs of Zion, for instructing his children and household in the ways of God, for meeting with his brethren in the house of prayer, of listening to God’s ministers, of attending the Sabbath-school and Bible-class, and so many other means of grace which never would be enjoyed without a stated period of rest. The worship of God is suspended on the perpetuity of the Sabbath.

Sabbath observance, in all ages, has been the stronghold of God’s church. It has a greater religious influence upon men to restrain them from wickedness, induce them to attend the worship of God, and to bring them under sacred influences, than any other means of grace. What a mighty influence for good Sabbath-schools have had upon children! What a death-blow it would be to the regular attendance at the house of God to have no Sabbath day? Indeed, it is a question whether the church could be maintained without it. The great God saw

this necessity and provided for it in giving the Sabbath to the very first of the human family, and most carefully guarded this day of worship among his people for 4000 years, at least. Now, is it reasonable to believe that when we come to the gospel age, which is to be better than all other ages, that this great blessing, given to the church, was to be withdrawn, and no provision made by the great Head of the church to meet so important a want as this? If they needed a Sabbath day then, why not now?

So strongly have Christians felt this necessity that they have regularly kept a Sabbath day, whether God has commanded it or not. And is it not a remarkable fact that our no-Sabbath friends, the very ones who are arguing against any sacred day in the gospel age, still find it convenient to observe a day as sacred, as well as other men? They have their Sabbath-schools and their religious meetings, the same as other Christians. They lay aside their work and keep a day of rest. They find great benefit in doing this. Indeed, they cannot be persuaded to dispense with it. Is it not strange that God did not feel this necessity as strongly as his people, and make some provision for it?

What a beautiful institution is the Sabbath day, where it is carried out as God designed it should be. All physical labor is laid aside—everything is hushed and quiet. Everywhere through the neighborhood may be heard the voice of prayer and singing. Then, all cleanly clad, parents and children, brothers and sisters and friends, together wend their way to the house of God where this solemn worship is conducted.

Contrast this with a neighborhood where there is no holy day. It is work, work, work. The children become rude and rough; they grow up without reverence or love for worship. The knowledge of God is not taught among them. A few generations, and they are almost heathens. This is not imaginary. Abundance of facts go to show that this is so; and yet this is the very state of things to which the theory of our no-law friends would practically lead. We have a higher idea of God’s wisdom and love for his church than to believe that he would leave things in this loose condition. The Sabbath day was necessary once, or else God would not have commanded it. Let them show why it is not necessary now. Every reason that ever existed for its observance exists still. So far as this necessity exists, man has not changed; nor has the relation changed, between God and man, upon which the Sabbath obligation was based.

9. The Sabbath in the moral law. A further confirmation of this doctrine is found in the fact that God placed the Sabbath commandment, not in the types and shadows, which were only temporary, but in the moral law, the principles of which are founded in nature, and are as applicable in one age as another. Nay, they are eternal and unchanging. If the Sabbath were only a temporary institution, why did God place it there? Why not put it with the new moon, passover, and other feasts? It was spoken by the voice of God from Heaven, written with his finger, engraved in stone, and placed in the ark. I have never yet seen a reason given by our no-law opponents, why this was so.

10. God claims a day as his in the gospel. “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” Then the Lord has a day in the gospel. All attempts to make this mean anything else but what the words simply and plainly import, are manifestly only evasions. To say that it means the day of Judgment, would make it false, for John was not in the day of Judgment. To say that it means the gospel day, is simply absurd, for everybody would know that, without John’s telling it. Besides, this term is never used either for the day of Judgment or the gospel day; but it is so manifestly appropriate to the Sabbath that all can readily see it. The “Lord’s day,” what does that mean?

Why simply the day that belongs to the Lord. Does the Bible tell us about any such day as that? Yes; very frequently. “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” Ex. 20: 10. “My holy day.” Isa. 58: 13. “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark 2: 28; and many other like texts. Six days God has given to man; the seventh day is the Lord’s day. Hence, how proper for John to say, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”—the day that belongs to the Lord.

11. Christ’s teaching. It is a remarkable fact that much of Christ’s teaching related to the Sabbath, as to how it should be observed, what might be done upon it, and what might not; but not one disparaging word did he drop concerning it. Why was this, if the Sabbath was to cease with his death? He removed from it the traditions and glosses of the Pharisees, but recognized its authority; it was one of his “Father’s commandments,” which he kept; John 15: 10; and without keeping which there is only false worship. Matt. 15.

12. The Sabbath acknowledged by Christ, A. D. 70. In that portion of Christ’s prophecies, in Matt. 24, which relates to the fall of Jerusalem, forty years after Christ’s resurrection, he speaks of the Sabbath in a manner which shows that it would exist at that time. He says when Jerusalem should be destroyed, “Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.” Then the Sabbath day, according to Christ, would exist forty years down in the gospel dispensation. If it existed then, it exists still; hence, there is a Sabbath day.

13. No dispute exists between Jews and Christians about the Sabbath. All know what sticklers the Jews were for the Sabbath, and how hard they tried to convict Christ of breaking it. Now, according to the theory of our opponents, the whole body of Christians, immediately after his resurrection, everywhere taught that the Sabbath was no longer to be observed, and either kept another day, or no day at all. Had this been so, we should most naturally expect disputes, sharp contentions, and frequent trouble between Jews and Christians touching the Sabbath question. This would have been unavoidable. But directly the reverse of this; not a word of dispute between the two classes ever appears in the whole record of the New Testament. This is unaccountable, if the position of our opponents be true, but it does strongly show that Christians and Jews both kept the Sabbath day as they always had. Among all their accusations against Paul, why did they not produce this one of Sabbath breaking? They certainly would, had it been true, for it was death to violate the Sabbath; yet they never mentioned it. This shows that he neither taught nor practiced the desecration of the Sabbath.

14. Called the Sabbath in the New Testament. No slight evidence of the continuance of the Sabbath in the gospel age is found in the fact that all the writers in the New Testament who mention the Sabbath either before or after the death of Christ still call it “the Sabbath day” just as it had always been called. There is no change in their phraseology. Hear Luke, writing thirty years after the death of Christ: They “went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down.” Acts 13: 14. “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side,” &c. Acts 16: 13. “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Acts 17: 3. Note a few facts. 1. This is inspired language. 2. It is the language of Christians thirty years after the death of Christ. 3. It was written for the use of Christians in all coming ages. 4. It directly acknowledges that the Sabbath day still existed. 5. Hence, there is a Sabbath day in the gospel.

15. The law of the Sabbath not abolished. If this be so, then it follows that the Sabbath is still binding. We have answered every text relied upon to prove the law abolished, and found that they do not teach that doctrine, but the reverse. If our limits would allow, we could here show by many and strong texts in the New Testament that the law is still binding. See Matt. 5: 17–19; Rom. 2: 12–29; 3: 19–31; Jas. 2: 8–12; 1 John 5: 2, 3; Rev. 14: 12; 22: 14; &c. Read only one of these: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Rom. 3: 31. What could be plainer? The Sabbath is a part of that law thus established.

16. Prophecies of the Sabbath. Several

of the prophecies relating to the gospel, directly mention the Sabbath as then to be kept. Take one: Isa. 56: 6–8. “Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant [new covenant]; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered unto him.” We know that this applies in the gospel age. See Matt. 1: 11; John 10: 16; Rom. 12: 1; Eph. 2: 14–16; Heb. 13: 15; 1 Pet. 2: 5. This proves that the Sabbath will exist in the gospel, and a blessing is pronounced on those Gentiles or strangers who will keep it. Shall we not do it?

17. All days holy. Frequently our no-Sabbath friends affirm the absurd position that all days are holy; that we should keep all time sacred to God. They take this position to cover the nakedness and manifest deficiency of their no-Sabbath theory. They first affirm that there is no holy day, and then face square about and affirm that all days are holy. Or, perhaps, they mean that the sacredness which once centered on the seventh day is now spread over the whole week! We should do good every day, they say. So we should. But was not this equally true when the Sabbath was binding? It was never lawful for a man to do wrong on any day more than it is now. God himself declared that no work shall be done on a holy day. “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.” Ex. 35: 2. This is God’s definition of a holy day, and it agrees with the definition usually given by all authorities. A holy day is one in which no work must be done. If, then, all days are holy, it would not be lawful to do any work at all! Time that is holy to God we have no right to use in our own secular business. These men argue that all time is sacred and should be kept holy to God, and then use it all, the whole seven days, in their own worldly business, making money for themselves! This reminds me of a rich man who was always telling how every thing he had was the Lord’s; yet he never gave any thing to the gospel, the poor, or benevolent objects. We must question their sincerity; there is no reason in their doctrine; nor do they practice it at all.

18. Conclusion. Let us sum up a few of the facts concerning the seventh-day Sabbath. 1. God himself first kept it. 2. He has blessed it. 3. He has sanctified it. 4. He spoke it from Heaven with his own voice. 5. He wrote it with his own finger. 6. He engraved it in stone. 7. He deposited it in the ark in the most holy place. 8. He put it in the moral law. 9. He has threatened with death all who shall break it. 10. He has pronounced a blessing on all who will keep it. 11. It was given in Paradise. 12. It was given before the fall. 13. It was given to Adam, the head of all mankind. 14. It is a memorial of creation. 15. All the facts on which it was originally founded still exist. 16. The patriarchs kept it. 17. The prophets all kept it. 18. All the people of God for four thousand years kept it. 19. Christ kept it during his whole life. 20. The apostles kept it. 21. All Christians called it the Sabbath. 22. The Lord claims it still as his day. 23. Man’s physical nature demands a Sabbath day. 24. Man’s spiritual nature demands it. 25. Those who teach the no-Sabbath theory still find it necessary to keep a Sabbath. 26. Negatively, it can not be shown that God ever worked on the seventh day. 27. Nor that Christ ever did. 28. Nor that any holy man in the Old Testament ever did. 29. Nor that any Christian in the New Testament ever did. If our opponents will show when they did, we will give up the whole Sabbath question. 30. There is no record that God has ever taken his blessing or sanctification from it. 31. He has no where said that man may work on the seventh day. 32. He has no where relinquished his claim to it as his holy day. 33. In the whole Bible, not one word is said derogatory to the sacredness of the seventh day. 34. It is a part of the moral law, which is still binding. 35. It will be kept in the new earth eternally. D. M. CANRIGHT.

Baptismal Hymn

[From a baptismal account, we clip the following singular and ingenious hymn, and present it as another of the literary curiosities of the world. As, one by one, the subjects of this holy rite “came up out of the water,” by a group upon the pebbly shore was sung, in separate stanzas, this hymn. Who is its author, we do not know. That it is worthy of study, we are very certain.]

Christ, who came my soul to save, Matt. 18:11; 1 Tim. 1:15, Entered Jordan's yielding wave, Matt. 3:13; Mark 1:9, Rose from out the crystal flood, Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10, Owned and sealed the Son of God, Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22, By the Father's voice of love, Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11, By the heaven-descending Dove, Luke 3:22; John 1:32, Saviour, Pattern, Guide for me, John 12:26; 1 Peter 2:21, I, like Him, baptized would be. Matt. 3:13; Acts 8:36, 38. In the garden, o'er His soul, John 18:1; Matt. 26:38, Sorrow's whelming waves did roll; Luke 12:50; Luke 22:44; Ah! on Calvary's cruel tree, Luke 23:33; 1 Peter 2:24, Jesus bowed in death for me; John 19:30; Rom. 5:8; I with Him am crucified; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:6; All my hope is—He hath died; 1 Pet. 1:3; 1 Thess. 5:10; At his feet my place I take, Luke 10:39; Matt. 11:29, Bear the cross for His dear sake. Matt. 16:24; Luke 14:27. In the new-made tomb he lay, Matt. 27:60; John 19:42, Taking all its dread away; 1 Cor. 15:55; 1 Thess. 4:14; Burst He through its rock-bound door, Luke 24:2, 3; Matt. 28:6, Glorious now and evermore; Mark 16:19; Rev. 1:18; I with Christ would buried be, Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12, In this rite required of me; Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:38; Rising from the mystic flood, Acts 8:39; Col. 2:12; Living hence anew to God. Rom. 6:4; Rom. 14:7, 9.

Romanism in the United States.

By R. S. Webber

GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES.

The following is taken from the Illustrated Catholic Family Almanac, for 1871, page 100:—

“The growth of the Catholic Church in our midst has proportionately far outstripped that of the republic. In a period of ninety-five years, the United States has increased from thirteen States to thirty-seven States and thirteen Territories, while the Church, during a period of eighty-one years, has increased from one bishopric to fifty-four bishoprics, six vicariates apostolic, and four mitred abbots. The population of the country has increased from 2,803,000 to about 40,000,000, an increase of 1,433 per centum; while the Catholic population has increased from 25,000 to about 5,500,000, an increase of 22,000 per centum.”

The increase in our Catholic population has resulted from foreign immigration, the natural growth of our native population, conversions from the sects, and accessions from the Indian tribes. The salvation of the Indians has ever been one of the dearest aims of the Catholic Church. The Church is conservative and productive. Had her efforts not been defeated by the non-Catholic and inhuman policy pursued toward the Indians, they, too, would have been prepared for an enlightened civilization on earth, and for the enjoyment of the beatific vision in Heaven.

Our clergy have been increased from twenty-one priests in 1790 to about four thousand and eight hundred, dispensing the blessings of faith and religion to five and one half millions of Catholics, worshiping at four thousand two hundred and fifty churches, and seventeen hundred chapels and stations. The incense of prayer and benedictions ascends, also, from thousands of institutions dedicated to religion, education, and dispenses inestimable blessings upon the land.”

If the above estimate is true, may we not expect to see some of the old dragon spirit manifested when the image is made to the beast? Rev. 12: 17; 13: 14, 15.

We find also that they have some of the finest and most costly churches upon the western continent. The Cathedral in Mexico, they claim to be the noblest temple of God in the western world. It was begun in 1573, was ninety-four years building, and cost $1,752,000. The Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Boston, Mass., was originally estimated to cost about $2,500,000; hence, we can see that they make every effort to make an outside show of piety and religion, claiming at the same time that theirs is the only true religion. All others are false. We can see that there is a hideous monster silently creeping into our midst. The Romish priest swears by an oath that there is no salvation to those who do not believe this creed, that is, who do not believe in the supremacy of the pope, indulgences, transubstantiation, purgatory, image worship, saint worship, persecution against Protestants, traditions, &c. He swears also to spread these antichristian doctrines among those under his care.

Cruelty is a central principle in the church of Rome, and therefore it is anti-republican. It is very common among Roman Catholics to deny that their church approves religious persecution, but there is no fact more clearly proved, both by history and the dogmas of the church everywhere contained in their canons and bulls.

Bellarmine, the papal authority constantly appealed to, says:—

“Experience teaches us that there is no other remedy [than death]; for the church has advanced by degrees, and tried every remedy. At first, she only excommunicated, then fined, then exiled; at last, she was compelled to have recourse to death. If you throw them (Protestants) into prison, or send them into exile, they corrupt their neighbors by their language, and those who are at a distance by their books; therefore, the only remedy is to send them speedily to their proper place.”

The following is the curse of Pope Benedict VIII.:—

“May they suffer the curse of God and of the world. May they suffer it in their body. May their mind become stupefied. May they meet with all bodily pains, and end in perdition.

“May they be damned with the cursed ones, and perish with the wicked,” &c.

The Rhemish translator of the New Testament, on Rev. 17: 6, “drunken with the blood of saints,” says, “Protestants foolishly expound it to Rome, for that they put heretics to death and allow of their punishment in other countries. But their blood (the Protestant’s) is not called the blood of saints any more than the blood of thieves, man-killers, and other malefactors, for the shedding of which by order of justice no commonwealth shall answer.”

Therefore, we see, if they had the power to-day, they would punish heretics, as they call them, with the same vengeance that they did through the long and bloody reign of the papacy. It is so natural to their religion, they cannot refrain from it altogether. Romanism has not changed by the light and progress of civilization. In the State of Pennsylvania, a few years ago, near Doylestown, a German Catholic was beaten almost to death, while on a sick bed, by a Catholic priest, because he had become a Protestant. The priest was fined fifty dollars and cost, and then he left the country. This is popery! Who can think this unchangeable church has changed her system of butchery? What she has been, she is now, and we should feel it if she had the power. Now that there is to be an image made to the beast, will there not be a likeness in the spirit of the beast that will make the image and the beast to which the image was made? It seems to me there will be. Then, dear brethren, let us be prepared for the solemn events that await us. Let us put our trust in the Lord, and he will save us.

R. S. WEBBER. Richmond, Maine.

Chinese in America.

The American churches raise large sums of money to send missionaries to China, but when the Chinese come to our own land, they show no interest in their welfare. These churches would rather pay money to have their work done by proxy, and at a convenient distance, than to engage in Christian effort when the opportunity is thrust upon them, and the heathen brought to their own doors. It has for years been the shame of America that the Chinese, the most quiet, patient, and industrious of our foreign-born population, are treated more like brutes than like men. The following, which we copy from the Independent, is a rebuke to the heathenism of America, and to the injustice which the laws of California do to that people.

“Let our people read the petition signed by the Chinamen of San Francisco to the city government, protesting against the proposition to clip the hair of the Chinese prisoners who happen to be arrested for living too compactly in their crowded quarters. They remind their enemies that there are treaty stipulations between America and the Chinese Empire: that foreign treaties were granted by the Chinese Government unwillingly, under force of arms; also, that the introduction of foreigners into the Chinese trade has thrown out of employment a vast fleet of junks, employing a larger number of men than all the Chinamen in California. They remind the authorities that four hundred thousand Europeans have been received into China, and ask why there should be such opposition to fifteen thousand or twenty thousand peaceful Chinese. ‘In the name of our country, in the name of justice and humanity, in the name of Christianity, as we understand it,’ the petitioners say, ‘we protest against such severe and discriminating enactments against our people, while living in this country under existing treaties.’ They then make the following proposition:—

“Finally, since our presence here is considered so detrimental to the country, and is so offensive to the American people, we propose and promise on our part to use all our influence to carry the proposition into effect. We propose a speedy and perfect abrogation and repeal of the present treaty relations between China and America, requiring the retirement of all Chinese people and trade from these United States, and the withdrawing of all American people and trade and commercial intercourse whatever from China. This, perhaps, will give to the American people the opportunity of preserving for a longer time their civil and religious institutions, which, it is said, the immigration of the Chinese is calculated to destroy. This arrangement will, also, to some extent, relieve the Chinese people and Government from the serious embarrassments which now disturb them, and enable them, by so much, to return to the traditional policy of their sages and statesmen, i. e., ‘Stay at home and mind our own business, and let all other people do the same.’ This is our proposition. Will American

people agree to it? Will the newspapers, which have lately said so many things against our residence in this country—will they now aid us in bringing about this, to us, desirable state of affairs? In the meantime, since we are now here under sacred treaty stipulations, we humbly pray we may be treated according to those stipulations, until such time as the treaty can be repealed and commercial intercourse and friendly relations come to an end.”

“That is a fair proposition, and the wit of it is sharp enough to pierce the tough hide of a Celtic Californian.”

“God in the Constitution.”

This phrase, now of common occurrence, savors strongly of irreverence; but genuine reverence for the Supreme Being must be expected to greatly decline when his existence and attributes are made a political question, to be bandied about in stump speeches, and recognized on coercion. It is a growing question in the States, as in the nation at large. Ohio and Pennsylvania have Constitutional Conventions now in session, and the subject is agitated in both of them. The following is part of a brief speech of Mr. Broomall, of Delaware Co., Pa., on the question of incorporating the proposed amendment into the Constitution of that State. It is worthy of attentive reading and careful consideration:—

“First, the words reported by the committee have no use there, no proper function. To those who believe in a Supreme Being, and I trust we all do—there may be those who do not, but I confess that I have not met them—to those who believe in a Supreme Being, the phrase is useless, is unmeaning. To those who do not (and while I doubt whether there are those who do not, I am not prepared to deny the possibility of their existence),—to those who do not, it is untrue. To all of us, it is a mere mockery; it is a pretence of something that I am afraid our proceedings too often show we do not always feel.

“Let us bear in mind that we are proposing, not to change the Constitution ourselves, but to submit certain propositions to the people for their adoption or rejection. Are gentlemen willing to submit to a majority of ballots the question of the existence and attributes of the Deity? I am not. What a question it is! The being and attributes of the Creator; the existence of a lawgiver above all legislators, of a law above all human laws, a law that sets aside all human laws when they conflict with it; a law that binds the individual, not as a member of society, but as a man, and that commands him not to obey the civil law when it conflicts with this higher law! We propose to submit to a majority of ballots these great questions, whether there be a Ruler of the Universe, and whether we are responsible for our conduct to that Ruler of the Universe!”

“I know there was a day in the history of the world when it was supposed that councils called by men could settle the question of the being and attributes of God so as to bind the Great Ruler of the Universe, but we have long outlived that day. Now, those questions are for man, not as a citizen, but as a being responsible to his Maker—a child under the guardianship of his Father.

“To what tribunal do you propose to submit these great questions?” We have heard that tribunal characterized here. Gentlemen have spoken of that tribunal in a way that would make us hesitate to submit any question to it, no matter what. How has the election mob of Philadelphia been characterized? In what language has it been spoken of here? Gentlemen have risen on this floor and denounced the decision of a Philadelphia election mob in language that would make one afraid for his country, lest self-government should prove a failure; and you propose to submit these great questions to the decision of that tribunal. You propose to let a Philadelphia election mob settle for all of us the question whether there is or is not a great Judge in whose court we are all responsible for our conduct. Just imagine such a question submitted to such a tribunal! In all the grog shops of the city, this question is to be debated and talked about. It is to be settled there; it is to be decided there; and Christianity must submit to the decision, whatever it be!”

“Who asks that this question should be decided in our organic law at all? Who asks those questions to be decided here? Who submits to us the question? Who authorizes us to settle it? How can any delegate dare decide for his constituents whether there be a God and whether they owe Him responsibility for their conduct? Who asks this decision? Whom will it bind? Do gentlemen who advocate this proposition say that they have authority from the Being most interested in the question, if we are to believe their doctrine, to suffer that question to be raised here and decided by an election mob? Do they pretend to say that that great Being has authorized them to submit his power and his existence to that kind of a tribunal?”

“Sir, it is quite time, at this late day, that it were understood that Christianity asks no aid from human governments; that religion can stand a great deal of crushing out without being injured; but when it is taken to the arms of the civil power, it falls degraded and dishonored. It was for this reason, and the after experience of centuries, that our forefathers divorced forever all Church and State, and suffered religion to stand where it should stand, upon the consciences and the convictions of men.”

“Look at the history of the world and see whether we dare propose to return to the old state of things! What was the condition of Christianity before the Roman emperors allied it to the government? As pure an emanation from Heaven as ever blessed the earth. What was it after? A very demon of hell! And it is so always. Wherever religion rests alone, where it was intended to rest, upon the consciences and convictions of men, there, it is an angel of purity; wherever it is joined with the civil arm and rests upon coercion, it is a curse to the country in which it is.”

Spiritual Security in Temporal Danger

In temporal danger seek spiritual security.

Continue reading: Beautiful Extract