The American Sentinel, Vol. 6, No. 15
REFERRING to a large foreign element in this country and the relation to SundayPage 1
REFERRING to a large foreign element in this country and the relation to Sunday of those who compose it, Alex. S. Bacon, Esq., of Brooklyn, at the second anniversary of the American Sabbath Union, said:— It is useless to argue with them from the word of God, for they do not recognize it as a rule of life. The Sabbath Recorder, the organ of the Seventh-day Baptists, thus states what it conceives to be one reason why it is useless:— It is useless to argue with them from the word of God; but the reason which he assigns for such vain attempts hardly meets the case. It may be true that they do not place that importance upon the Bible as the rule of life which Protestant Christians in this country give it, but they also know that there is not one word of authority in the Bible for the observance of Sunday, as Mr. Bacon, or any one else, can easily ascertain. These foreigners, with their “bright intellects,” and “susceptibility to argument,” can not fail to see that these zealous advocates of Sunday fly in the face of the Scriptures to get rid of the Seventh-day Sabbath—the only weekly Sabbath known in the Bible. For this reason it is useless to argue with them from the word of God. Is this not the reason also why they appeal to the State rather than to the divine law? If they had a divine statute for Sunday would they be so ready to demand civil enactments? The American Sabbath.
By Alonzo T. Jones
Much inquiry has been made lately, as to what is “the American Sabbath.” It seems to have been found out at last what it is. It seems to be the official organ of the American Sabbath Union, for there has just come to our table, Number 1, of Volume 1, of a twenty-four-page publication, entitled, the American Sabbath, which is declared to be “the official organ of the American Sabbath Union.” We are rather of the opinion that this is as definite an idea of what the “American Sabbath” is as can ever be attained. Yet, in several places through the paper, we find reference made to “the American Sabbath, or Lord’s day.” Now, the Lord’s day certainly belongs to the Lord. The expression being in the possessive case, the day must be possessed by the Lord. He is the possessor of the Lord’s day. Therefore if the Lord’s day is the American Sabbath, it follows inevitably that the Lord must be an American. The National Reformers have been a long while trying to make him an American citizen. The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, several years ago, joined the National Reformers in this project; and the two organizations have since been working diligently together to that end. They propose to have the Lord made the chief executive in this Nation; but as the Constitution declares that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen, of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to this office,” it inevitably follows that they must suppose the Lord to be a citizen of the United States. Such, however, is a very grave error into which these organizations have fallen; yet, to it they seem to be wedded. Now, we suppose that the members of these organizations who may read this, will cry out that we are very irreverent in thus writing; but this is a mistake also. With sincere reverence toward the Lord, we simply set forth the blasphemous irreverence of the pretensions and the demands of the American Sabbath Union, the National Reform Association, and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. According to the American Sabbath, and the Constitution of the American Sabbath Union, “the object of the American Sabbath Union is to preserve the Christian Sabbath as a day of rest and worship.” The means by which it is proposed to accomplish this object, is by looking after “national and local legislation, for the protection of public peace and order, and for the rights of all classes of people to their weekly rest day.” Every piece of legislation that we have yet seen that this Union favors, in behalf of the day of rest, has been to compel the observance of the day as such, under penalties all the way from $2.00 to $1,000. Now according to the declared objects of the Union, all this is in behalf of the Christian Sabbath; therefore this Union does distinctively propose to preserve and extend the observance of Christian institutions, by law, that is, by the power of the State. More than this, these laws are intended to act alike upon all—Christians, and non-Christians, Jews, infidels, and atheists. This is, in short, an attempt to compel all who are not Christians to recognize and observe a Christian ordinance. It is to compel those who are not Christian to act114as though they were; it is to compel every man who is not a Christian either to become a hypocrite or a violator of the law. And every man who has the real manliness of a freeman will violate the law rather than to act the hypocrite by obeying the law. Every man in violating such a law, only exercises his inalienable and God-given right. Let us make this plain. It is the inalienable right of every man in this world, to worship whom he pleases and when he pleases. It is every man’s right to be a Christian or not, as he chooses. He is responsible to God alone for the exercise of this right. Every man in this world has the inalienable right to dissent from any church doctrine, and to refuse to conform to any church discipline. Every man has the right utterly to disregard every church ordinance, rite, and institution. Church ordinances, church rites, and church institutions, are of obligation only upon those who voluntarily assume the place of membership in the church. Now, when the State attempts to enforce the observance of church ordinances, rites, or institutions, it simply proposes to rob men of their inalienable right to think and to choose for themselves in matters of religion, and of church order. Men, are therefore, compelled either to submit to be robbed of their inalienable right of freedom of thought in religious things, or to disregard the authority of the State. The State by thus stepping out of its place and becoming the supporter of the Church, attempts to rob men of their inalienable right of dissent, and forces them, in the exercise of their inalienable right, to be rebels. Now, Sunday is acknowledged to be a church institution only. As we have lately shown in THE SENTINEL, the American Sabbath Union itself says so. But the Union is not alone in this; all the authorities on the subject of Sunday observance agree that the custom was adopted by the early Church without a divine command. That the observance belongs only to the Church is admitted in this very statement of the object of the American Sabbath Union: that is, that it is to preserve the Christian Sabbath. Now Christian institutions and Christian observance belong only to confessed Christians. And not only has neither Church nor State any right to require any others to observe them, but no others have any right to observe them. Baptism is a Christian ordinance; none but believers in Christ have any right to celebrate it or conform to it. The Lord’s supper is a Christian ordinance; none but Christians have any right to approach the Lord’s table, or partake of the Lord’s supper. Not only every preacher, but every Christian in the American Sabbath Union, the National Reform Association, and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, will acknowledge that this is cor- rect, and would refuse to allow any one, who is not a professed believer in Christ, to partake of this ordinance. If any such non-professor, while still holding his unbelief, should presume to celebrate this ordinance, there is not a Christian in any one of these organizations, who would not count such a thing as gross sacrilege. Now, these same people insist that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, and the Lord’s day; and at the same time demand that the civil power shall compel men to observe it who are not Christians, and have no respect whatever for the Lord. Thus in their arrogance, they stultify themselves by compelling men to observe in one instance, what they count these same men only as blasphemers for observing in other similar instances. To be consistent, nay, to deal even in common fairness, the people and the organizations who demand Sunday laws, should confess that the observance of the Christian Sabbath, or the Lord’s day belongs only to Christians, to those who respect the Lord; or else demand laws that shall compel all alike to observe baptism and celebrate the Lord’s supper. Upon what principles of right or of common fairness can men be refused Christian baptism, and compelled to observe the Christian Sabbath? Upon what principles of right or common fairness can men be shut away from the observance of the Lord’s supper, and be compelled to observe the Lord’s day? Oh, the depths of the hypocrisy and the meanness of the whole Sunday-law system are unfathomable! The utter baselessness of the claims of the American Sabbath Union is further expressed in the statement of its declared basis. Here it is:— The basis of the American Sabbath Union is the divine authority and universal and perpetual obligation of the Sabbath, as manifested in the order and constitution of nature, declared in the revealed will of God, formulated in the fourth commandment of the moral law, interpreted and applied by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, transferred to the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s day, by Christ and his apostles, and approved by its beneficent influence upon personal and national life.
Neither the divine authority nor the obligation, either universal or perpetual, of the Sabbath, is manifested at all in the order and constitution of nature. There is nothing whatever in nature that marks the Sabbath. The week is not a natural division of time. The day, the month, and the year, are all natural, but in nature there is nothing to mark the week. This they themselves well know. Herrick Johnson, D. D., is one of the vice-presidents of the American Sabbath Union. He spoke for the Union before the Senate committee in 1888, and in his speech he said:— This appointment of one day in seven is arbitrary. There is nothing in nature to indicate that division of time. There is the day of twenty-four hours, there is the month, there is the year, all these are natural divisions; but there is nothing in nature to indicate the weekly division; the observance of one day in seven. It is arbitrary, and we regard that as an evidence of its divine origin.
Thus again the American Sabbath Union knowingly contradicts itself. The second element in this basis is as knowingly self-contradictory as the one already shown. “The Sabbath as declared in the revealed will of God, formulated in the fourth commandment of the moral law, interpreted and applied by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” is the seventh day and not Sunday. In the revealed will of God, in the fourth commandment, and in the teaching of Christ—from the beginning to the end of revelation—the only day that is ever referred to as the weekly Sabbath, is the seventh day, and not the first day of the week. This is admitted in the publications of the American Sabbath Union, and even in this basis itself, for the very next element in the basis of the Union, is, that the Sabbath of the revealed will of God, of the fourth commandment, and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, “was transferred to the Christian Sabbath or Lord’s day.” What the Union means by the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s day is the first day of the week; and for the Sabbath to be transferred to this, necessarily it had to be transferred from something else. That is from another day to this. That other day, the only one from which it could possibly have been transferred, according to the fourth commandment and all the rest of the Scriptures, is the seventh day. More than this, the first day of the week is not the Lord’s day according to the Scriptures. This is as plain and logical as anything needs to be. The Lord himself said: “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:28. The same Lord said “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Here are two plain Scripture statements which put in logical formula, stand thus:— Major: The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.
Minor: The seventh day is the Sabbath.
The only conclusion that can ever be drawn from these premises is,—
Therefore, the Son of man is Lord of the seventh day. That conclusion is just as sound as these two statements of Scripture are; and the two statements of Scripture are as plain and positive on that subject as any two statements ever can be made. Forming from this another syllogism, we have this:— Major: Whatever day it is of which the Son of man is Lord, that is the Lord’s day.
Minor: The Son of man is Lord of the seventh day.
Therefore, the Lord’s day is the seventh day. This logic is unquestionable; and the conclusion is just as true as the Scripture itself.115Another element in this basis is that this transfer was made “by Christ and his apostles,” and this the Union knows is not true. Only four weeks ago we printed an official statement of the Union itself, that there is no divine command for the observance of the first day of the week; and here we print another statement from the same document then quoted. It says, that the observance of the first day of the week grew up spontaneously in the apostolic age, and out of the heart of believers, and so became the Sabbath of the Christian era.—Saturday or Sunday—which? Page 5.
And this with a number of other things is said to be the same document to furnish a reliable presumption that, during those years following the resurrection, the first day of the week was observed in a religious way.—Pages 6, 7. And as to the authority for Sunday observance, Herrick Johnson on the occasion and in the speech before referred to, argued with the chairman of the Senate committee in the following words:— MR. JOHNSON.—I think that no one who accepts the Bible doubts that there is one day in seven to be observed as a day of rest. THE CHAIRMAN.—Will you just state the authority? MR. JOHNSON.—Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. . . . Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work. THE CHAIRMAN.—Is there any other? MR. JOHNSON.—There are references to this law all through the Bible. THE CHAIRMAN.—Now you come and change that Sabbath day to which the Lord refers. MR. JOHNSON.—That we hold was changed by the Lord himself. THE CHAIRMAN.—When did he do that, and by what language? MR. JOHNSON.—There was a meeting for worship on the first day of the week, the day the Lord arose, and seven days after there was another meeting for the same purpose, and then it is referred to as the Lord’s day. THE CHAIRMAN.—After the change? MR. JOHNSON.—Yes, sir; after the change. THE CHAIRMAN.—It is based then upon two or three days being observed as days of religious worship after the resurrection. These statements show that the members of the Union know, that when called upon for any statement that the Lord or his apostles did transfer the day of rest from the seventh to the first day of the week, they can not furnish any such statement. And this, for the simple reason that there is no such statement. They are driven therefore to “presumptions,” and “probabilities,” and “spontaneous growths” from the “hearts of believers.” And such is the basis of the American Sabbath Union, for the last element in the basis is as intangible as all the others. And the result which these men and associations have reached, by their presumptuous presumptions, probabilities, and spontaneous growths—this they will have enforced upon all the people of this Nation and even of the world, by the power of the State and national authority. The arrogance of the Sunday-law scheme is as colossal as its hypocrisy and meanness are unfathomable. This is our candid opinion of the Sunday-law movement from beginning to end. As soon as we leave generalities about the “inculcation of Christian morals” and undertake to determine specifically what Christian morals the public schools shall inculcate, we come upon matters of controversy about which people differ whose rights as citizens, as parents, and as taxpayers are precisely the same.—New York Times. ENFORCED labor on Sunday is a tyranny, and enforced idleness is the same. The civil, or any other, Sabbath is not nor ever was necessary for the preservation of our free institutions. California, where the civil Sabbath does not exist, and where institutions are as free as anywhere, proves the claim for the necessity of a Sunday law to be false. Sunday laws are necessary only to the preservation of religious institutions, and they are necessary to that purpose for no other reason than that professing Christians are not sincere enough to keep Sunday without being forced to do so.—San Francisco paper. Shall Our Schools Be Sectarian?
SHALL we have our schools sectarian or not? Shall we teach history trenching on religious ground or not? The question has so far been mooted with reference to the Roman Catholics who have complained of the sectarianism of some of the text-books used in the public schools. But the question is not one that concerns only the Roman Catholics as against the Protestants, as our Presbyterian friends in Tennessee are finding out. For they have sent in a petition to the Legislature protesting against the introduction into the schools of the State of a history written by the Hon. James Phelan, especially for use in the public schools of the State. These Presbyterians assert that in his chapter on “Churches,” Mr. Phelan has sadly misrepresented the Presbyterian Church, and the reasons for the origin of the Cumberland Presbyterians. And it is further charged that our historian exhibits too strong Methodist proclivities. Very likely the reader will ask why teach the scholars about the churches any way? Why, indeed, except that an account, origin, and development of the churches is history, and if we must teach history regardless of its religious or sectarian trend, why should we stop at the churches, why not teach that department of history too? The reason why it should not be taught, is that every one looks at history with different eyes; and whether or not Mr. Phelan is open to the fault charged against him, it goes without saying, that he could not see Presbyterianism as Presbyterians see it, and be the good Methodist that he probably is, and vice versa. In all such matters, therefore, it seems best to refrain from offending the consciences of any. The departments of physics, writing, language and literature, grammar, algebra, geometry, astronomy, geology, chemistry, hold no necessary relation to religion or to sectarian belief. But when we come to church history, will Presbyterians see the Reformation as the Romanists do, or will they even regard Luther as the Lutherans do? Is there common agreement as to the work of Zwingli? In entering that field are we not trenching upon debatable ground, which alike in the interests of peace and regard for the convictions of others it would be as well to avoid? So at least it seems to us.—The Christian at Work. A Remarkable Publication.
By C. P. B.
A FEW days since, there came to our table a marked copy of the Evening Sentinel, published at Keene, New Hampshire, containing the following notice of a new pamphlet:— “THE STATUS OF THE CHURCH AND WHETHER IT IS DRIFTING.” There is in press, soon to be issued, a pamphlet of most unique character, with the above title, and which is calculated not only to interest a large class of people but to stimulate thought on the subjects of which it treats beyond anything of the kind that has recently come to our notice. The character of the work is indicated in its title. Although its contents can be digested in an hour, it is voluminous in thought far beyond many works of greater pretensions. Some of the propositions discussed are both momentous and startling; but they are supported in the main by quotations from recognized authorities that must largely relieve the writer of any charge of indulging in fanciful speculations. The timely reference which the author makes to the legislation sought in the direction of restrictive laws touching Sunday observance, etc., is well calculated to arouse such interest as will lead to a profound consideration of the whole subject. This work was written by one of our best-known citizens—a gentleman who has the courage of his convictions, and who, from the thought he has given these and kindred subjects, is well qualified to discuss them, not only in an interesting, but a logical manner, as will be apparent to the reader. The same mail that brought to us the paper containing the foregoing notice, brought also a copy of the pamphlet which the title page tells us is “by a layman;” but as the Evening Sentinel assures us that the author is “a gentleman who has the courage of his convictions,” we will suppose that his only motive in withholding his name from the public was that attention might be attracted to the subject rather than to the author. “The present status of the Church,” as depicted by the writer of this pamphlet, is simply deplorable. The author’s opening statement is:— The fact is but too apparent that the influence of the Church is on the wane, however repugnant the admission may be to its adherents and supporters. The leading men and papers in the religious world acknowledge the low condition of the churches and the many evil practices of which they are guilty. In support of this indictment against the churches, the following extracts are then quoted from the Southern Presbyterian and from the Christian Advocate, respectively:— “The churches get up a miniature theatre, mostly farcical, and ask godly and ungodly men and women116to take parts, so as to draw money out of godly and ungodly pockets. And what does the sinner think and say of this? Why, that the Church is no better than the world.” “Disguise it as you like, the Church, in a general sense, is spiritually in a rapid decline. While it grows in numbers and money, it is becoming extremely feeble and limited in its spirituality, both in the pulpit and the pews. It is assuming the shape and character of the church of Laodicea. There are thousands of ministers, local and conference, and many thousands of the laity who are as dead and worthless as barren fig trees.” Following these are other testimonies of a like nature, and then comes this statement from the late Rev. Austin Phelps, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary:— We live in an age in which individualism in matters of religion has run wild. The waning of authority in the Church has carried with it, on the downward grade, the restrictive duties and courtesies of Christian morals which were once subject to the common conscience of believers, in which now every one does that which is right in his own eyes. To this the author adds:— In spite of the efforts put forth on the part of those who feel admissions of waning strength would prove detrimental to church interests, the fact can not be ignored that its influence for good, for building up Christ’s kingdom, evangelizing the world is on the wane; that the garments of the Church are donned by many more for serving their own purposes than for the grand object of practically adopting the teachings and examples of the Master. Look at the defalcations, thefts, and rascalities every day coming to light, of those who have held high position in the Church, bringing ruin oftentimes to widows and orphans whose all has been confided to their keeping. While there are many noble examples to offset these, yet the lamentable fact confronts us that the tendency is to a laxity of morals and discipline that is bringing disgrace and contempt upon the Church, neutralizing in a large degree its power for good. What wonder, in view of this, that so many should be led to question the fundamental principles of Christianity and stray to other folds, accepting the doctrines of liberal churches and freethinkers. Well may we pause and ask, “Whither are we drifting?” The religious tenets of the Church are based on the great fundamental principles of the Bible; and when in conformity to its teachings it labors for the salvation of mankind there can be no doubtful result. Following this, our author refers to the various theories of the origin of the earth, once rejected by the Church as anti-Scriptural but now accepted and taught; also to the doctrine of a future probation, and then says:— When the fact is considered that its influence is all-pervading, sapping and undermining the churches in a measure that threatens destruction, it is time the tocsin of alarm was sounded. Not only is Andover and other staunch theological institutions being shaken, but ministers, as also laymen, in high places everywhere are contaminated; oft publicly advocating adversely to the old creeds that but maintain the basic principles of divine authority. To remedy this it is evident that the most decisive measures are demanded, in lieu of the palliatives that have so long been unsuccessfully resorted to. The Sunday-rest bill now pending in Congress, as also the proposed amendment to the Constitution wherein God and Christ are recognized as the head of all authority will, upon final enactment, insure largely the benefits sought by their promoters, as also go far towards securing further and more pointed legislation in the interests of the Church, which must be had in order to fully protect itself from the freethought heresies and liberal sentiments that are so surely gaining in it. Among the advantages thus to be secured is the control and censorship of the mails to the exclusion of all matter antagonizing the authority and doctrines of the evangelical churches, when, indeed, will Satan be shorn of a power hardly to be measured in words. This the author realizes is pretty strong meat for the average American mental stomach, and he adds:— This may seem too dominating, the wielding of a power not consistent with our boasted land of freedom. There is a just limit to freedom as to all things else. The laws already refuse the use of the mails for certain demoralizing agencies, obscene literature, lotteries, etc. The agency of the press, through the mails, in disseminating heretical and liberal doctrines to the injury of the Church, is a thousand-fold greater in its terrible and far-reaching consequences than is all the literature to which the mails are closed. This assertion may be a startling one, yet nevertheless true, unless the doctrine, as distinctly declared by the Bible and as held by the Church, that mankind can only be saved through the atoning blood of Christ, be false. Who that accepts the Bible in its fullness, in contemplation of the millions that are being led through the soothing doctrines of liberal and easy-going church influences down to everlasting perdition, could for a moment hesitate to lend his influence in shutting out from the mails every paper, pamphlet, or book that gives countenance to the theory that there is any hope for the salvation of mankind except through the merits or atoning blood of Christ? When the advantage coming of the Sunday-rest bill and others allied to it is secured, together with that which is sure to follow, then it is that not only the control of the mails but all else pertaining to the authority of the Church, will be established on a basis so firm as to be able to withstand and overcome all opposing influences. That this would be strictly in accordance with National Reform theories the author shows by a number of quotations which he gives as follows:— In speaking of the advantages to be gained by the adoption of the proposed amendment, Rev. R. C. Wylie, a member of the National Reform Association, whose object is to promote and aid in these reforms says, “We would then have a vantage ground we have not now.” Says M. A. Gault, a leading worker in the Association, “Our remedy for all these malefic influences is to have the Government simply set up the moral law and recognize God’s authority behind it, and lay its hand on any religion that does not conform to it.” Says Jonathan Edwards, D. D., of New York City, “We want State and religion and we are going to have it. . . . The Christian oath and Christian morality shall have in this land an undeniable legal basis. We use the word religion in its proper sense, as meaning a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God.” Again, in a convention of this Association, in 1887, it was held that the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, local, State, national and world-wide, has one vital, organic thought, one all-absorbing purpose, one undying enthusiasm, and that is that Christ shall be this world’s king:—Yea, verily, this world’s king in its realm of cause and effect; king of its courts, its camps, its commerce; king of its colleges and cloisters; king of its customs and Constitutions. . . . The kingdom of Christ must enter the realm of law through the gateway of politics.” In the Christian Statesman, of February 21, 1884, Rev. J. M. Foster, District Secretary of the National Reform Association, declared that among the duties the reigning Mediator requires of nations, is an “acknowledgment and performance of the nation’s duty to guard and protect the Church by suppressing all public violation of the moral law. . . . By exempting church property from taxation,” and “by providing her funds out of the public treasury, for carrying on her aggressive work at home and in the foreign field.” Says another avowed champion of this cause, “I want to see the day come when the Church shall be the arbiter of all legislation, State, national, and municipal; when the great churches of this country can come together harmoniously and issue their edict, and the legislative powers will respect it, and enact it into law.” Thus are we encouraged by these and a host of other noble workers, who are determined that the ends sought shall be gained at whatever sacrifice it may cost. It is evident that a more powerful leverage than that of words must be brought to bear on those who persist in their opposition to the rights of the Church and its wholesome restraint. The only possible defense of such methods is thus stated:— To make our protests effective they must be backed by a power beyond that of words alone. But the cry is made that in the rigid application of this principle the right of conscience would be denied. Even so, regardless of the conscientious scruples of these Seventh-day Sabbath keepers, the Jews, and others who assert their right to disregard the Sabbath recognized by the Church. So long as this right is recognized and tolerated, so long will the Church be hampered in its efforts to overcome the heretical doctrines that have ever been a hindrance to its advancement. Says a prominent writer, referring to the legislation asked for, “When this is had, as it soon should be, then we will rule the interests of godliness and sweep away those impious laws of liberty of conscience which are an insult to God and man.” Rev. David Gregg, D. D., pastor of Park Street Church, Boston, a vice president of the National Reform Association, affirms that the civil power “has the right to command the consciences of men.” To show that all that he has indicated may be realized, our author says:— It is to be especially noted as one of the most hopeful signs of gaining the desired object, to secure legislation that shall forever settle the matter in the interests of the Church, that nearly all the States have enacted laws recognizing the sanctity of the Sabbath, as held by the Church. Following this he very logically argues that if government, State or national, has the right in any degree to abridge or interfere with the right of conscience, of punishing by fine and imprisonment the Seventh-day Baptists and others of like faith who claim to conscientiously regard and keep the seventh day as the Sabbath, and as conscientiously labor and attend to secular interest on the first day, it certainly can do so to any extent it can be made to appear the welfare of the Church demands. In justification of this course our author presents the following argument which every logically consistent National Reformer must practically make his own:— The sacredness of Sunday in the higher sense could not be consistently maintained if the essential belief were lacking in the fundamental doctrines of the Church—the fall and redemption through the atonement. Hence, it is evident that laws against the desecration of the Sabbath were inspired by the belief that the fundamental doctrines of the evangelical order should be accepted as against the views of liberalists, who deny the sacredness of the Sabbath. It is also evident that the freedom so long accorded to those who ignore the basic principles of Christianity; but strengthens their purposes to gain the supremacy, to displace the doctrine of the atonement by that of progression, of the ultimate salvation of the whole human family. To counteract such pernicious teaching the Church should be invested with full power to suppress, at least so far as open advocacy is concerned, all such heresies. It is evident that the infliction of the severe117measures that the stubbornness of these heretics might make it necessary to adopt, would call forth bitter denunciations. This is to be expected. But finding the “powers that be” fully arrayed against them, they will be obliged to accept the inevitable, to submit to the ruling laws as they exist. Better if it were necessary that some, at least, of the leaders of heretical doctrines be given to the fagot and the rack than be allowed to lead deluded armies down to everlasting perdition. But fearful as such a condition would be, it far better come than that the teachings of the Church be supplanted by doctrines and agencies that so inevitably lead to certain ruin. He then takes up the objection that nothing of this kind would be tolerated in this age of freedom, and says:— Of course not, under our present loose system of allowing the most blasphemous doctrines to be advocated ad libitum, protected by laws in so doing. So long as this condition exists there can be but little hope of the supremacy of the Church. But when the legislation sought for is had, the Church will defend itself in the measure demanded by the assaults of its opposers. It is evident there is to be a life and death struggle; either the Church or its adversaries are to prevail. Can there be any doubt that God will approve any measure, however severe, to sustain his authority against the powers combined against it? . . . With this blessed assurance to encourage, all who would see the Church sustained and prosper should labor to this end with unrelenting vigor. More might be quoted to the same import, but this must suffice. The pamphlet is valuable as portraying the real spirit of National Reform. The author makes but one serious mistake, and that is in arguing that National Reform is in harmony with the spirit of Christianity, and that the God of the Bible would be pleased with such methods. But can we wonder that this “layman” should thus mistake the spirit of Satan for the spirit of the Master, when so many ministers of the gospel fall into the same grievous error? Christianity is of itself a most benign thing, National Reformers and Free-thinkers to the contrary, notwithstanding. Christ himself 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 the civil power to coerce men in spiritual things. The conclusion, therefore, of our author is not justified, namely that when the Church, aided by State and governmental laws, shall come back to the old orthodox standard, uninfluenced by freethought and progressive ideas, not allowing conscience to be exercised adversely to its interests, then may we feel assured that God’s blessing will follow in a measure that shall leave no doubt that the low spiritual condition, the lack of vital power and influence that has so largely characterized the Church status, its inefficiency, was largely due to the undue leniency toward all opposing elements. On the contrary, the Church would gain nothing by the securing of the civil power. The blessing of God follows trust in him, and not force. The National Reform theory which, by the way, is closely akin to the infidel theory, that Christianity is dependent for its very existence upon human effort and support, is as dishonoring to God as it is destructive of true religion. “When those first fair Eden glories met the eager,
raptured eyes
Of our then unstinting parents in that pristine par-
adise,
Our good Father gave them all things, save the
fruit of one fair tree,—
Set the good and ill before them, made their power
of choosing free.
God doth ne’er compel our spirits—we may choose
the good or ill.
’Tis the willing heart he loveth, but he never chained
the will. “Through the portal man threw open when he broke
God’s high decree,
Poured the clouds of error, followed by dark mists
of misery,—
Error blinded human vision, so that mortals did
not see,
Through the long Dark Ages after, that God made
the spirit free.
So they sought to make it servile by the prison and
the rack,
Till the beams of truth broke o’er them, and the
clouds were drifted back.” Give Us Rest.
By R. F. COTRELL
FROM the sayings of National Reformers one would be led to think that labor is one of the greatest curses that afflicts humanity, and that rest is the thing most to be desired, the one thing needful, the panacea for the ills of life! How they feel for the poor laborer! Much more than he feels for himself in this direction. What the laborer wants is work, and a fair compensation for it. Every person has the right to rest. He can rest one day in seven, if he choose and his conscience so dictate, without a law of the State to compel him; and the State has no right to interfere in this matter. R. F. COTRELL.