RATHER STULTIFYING EVIDENCE.
By W. N. G.
The efforts to establish the claim that "this is a Christian nation" are about as labored and withal fruitless as the attempts to adduce Scripture authority for the change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week. Two points in connection with the assumption that this is a Christian nation have lately been brought to the attention of the public, which are decidedly stultifying. The California Christian Advocate of the 8th inst., commenting on the case of Private Cedarquist, U. S. A., who refused to drill on Sunday, exultingly concludes, "Verily we do live in a Christian nation after all." A moment's digest of the case will show how utterly futile is the conclusion. An officer ordered target practice on Sunday, and Cedarquist refused to obey. The conscientious soldier was tried for disobedience of orders,659convicted, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The matter was brought to the attention of the President, who issued a pardon. The order for target practice on Sunday was in violation of an order of President Lincoln, issued in 1862, and the War Department ordered that Major Worth, who prosecuted Cedarquist, be himself tried for disobedience of orders. And this is why the Advocate concludes that "we do live in a Christian nation, after all." But there is not and never was a nation under the sun that would not punish its soldiers for disobedience of orders. And this is all there is in these trials. While the "specification" of the "charge" against the officer is ordering target practice on Sunday, the charge is disobedience of orders—a purely military charge, and not a religious charge. Furthermore, Major Worth has been acquitted of the charge against him, on the ground that President Lincoln's proclamation is not now in force, and that the commanding officer of the post was the proper judge of the necessity for the target practice which he ordered, the troops being on the eve of going into active service. But even if the officer was guilty as charged, if this were a Christian nation, it would be its duty to forgive this and every other offense, though committed seven times a day. The fact that it does not forgive all trespasses against its dignity, is positive evidence that it is not a "Christian" nation. And this further proves that it would be impossible for a Christian nation to exist in this sinful world. The pardon of Cedarquist does not imply innocence of crime. A pardon never implies innocence; it simply implies clemency or mercy on the part of the pardoning power. And in this instance it is expressly stated that the pardon "is not in any way to be regarded as justification of the disobedience of orders on the part of the soldier." Notwithstanding the fact that the head of the nation forbids target practice on Sunday, yet the national law will punish the soldier who refuses to engage in such practice on that day when ordered to do so by a superior. If Private Cedarquist were again ordered to drill on Sunday, and should refuse, he would again be tried by court-martial for disobedience of orders. If convicted, as he surely would be if proved guilty, it is not likely he would obtain a pardon. This fact clearly stultifies the "Christian nation" argument based upon the Sunday drill order. We had another attempt to bolster up the Christian nation theory in a recent address in this city by Mr. French, Prohibition candidate for Governor of the State. In the beginning of his address he argued earnestly that this is a Christian nation, but further along he stultified the argument by presenting statistics. For instance, the nation spends fifty cents per capita for missionary purposes, and fifteen dollars for intoxicating liquors. It is reasonable to assume that an individual who should spend fifteen dollars for intoxicants for every half dollar that he devoted to missionary work would not be reckoned as a Christian by Mr. French. Else his idea of Christianity must be very much befogged. W. N. G.