Signs of the Times, Vol. 39, No. 30.
IF YE WILL INQUIRE, INQUIRE YEPage 2
Earlier text: Mr. Tufts and His CriticismsOur Saviour and Lord
By George W. Reaser
OR at least a threefold purpose the world needed a life lived in "sinful flesh" and yet stainless of sin, matchless in righteousness, aglow with good works, magnificent in sacrifice, magnanimous in love and forgiveness,—in short, the manifestation of God in the flesh. And such was the life of the "Word" incarnate—pure in the sight of men, reproachless under the scrutiny of angels, approved of God. One reason for the necessity of such a life was that if men are ever to live on the plane of angels—sinless, unselfish beings—they must have a perfect pattern set before them, the stimulation of a spotless example; another, that only a sinless one could pay sin’s penalty; and still another, sin must be condemned in the flesh, and only he can consistently condemn sin in the flesh who has lived a sinless life. Every requirement of the race, every necessity of a perfect plan of salvation, was met in Him whose name is called "Wonderful," yet who "made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." Phil. 2:7. "In Him whom all our praise excels,
The fulness of the Godhead dwells,
And all perfections meet." Eternal principles of truth and righteousness, justice and mercy, are inherent in Divinity. Principles are not created; they exist, and are therefore in force, operative, wherever intelligent beings dwell. An oral, a written, or a living expression of these principles is simply the declaration of the character of God. Righteous principles, ever-existent, unchangeable, inalterable, constitute the law of Jehovah. His law, in whatever manner truly expressed, is the revelation of His character. No law of Jehovah is arbitrary. It is simply the expression of eternal principles of righteousness and truth, justice and mercy. Therefore any departure from the law of Jehovah is a violation of eternal principles. Such violation is suicidal. Therefore sin, which is "the transgression of the law," is self-destructive. In other words, the violation of eternal principles, the transgression of the law, the negation of the character of Jehovah, brings another law into operation, even "the law of sin and death." Violation of right principles is selfishness, self-worship. Wherever true happiness prevails, of necessity there must be an outflowing of love, instead of a manifestation of selfishness. Wherever intelligent beings dwell, in order to preserve happiness and life righteous principles must be held inviolate, for any violation of them brings into operation the law of sin, the results, unhappiness, death. It is God’s will that all His creatures should live by right principles, and thus enjoy perpetual happiness; hence the law, which is a written expression of right principles, is declared to be "for our good always." While all mankind had lived in violation of principles of righteousness and justice, yet the possibility, yes, the certainty, of the full revelation of these principles to humanity, in human flesh, was assured to our race in the gift of the divine Son of God. And as the law of Jehovah as given to man is a written expression of righteous principles, so when Divinity should come and dwell in human flesh, He must be a living expression of the inherent principles of righteousness and truth, justice and mercy, which are inseparable from Divinity. Or, in other words, He must reveal the character of the Godhead to humanity. And inasmuch as the law is a transcript of the character of Jehovah, so in the life of "Immanuel,—God with us," the law must appear "drawn out in living characters." As Christ looked down into our world and beheld the deplorable, disconsolate, hopeless condition of humanity because of the universal violation of righteous principles—transgression of the law—He spoke prophetically these words: "Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Ps. 40:7, 8. While righteous principles are inherent in divine nature, yet when the Son of God became the Son of Man,—put human nature on, in common with humanity,—He had to fight the battles against sin—the violation of right principles—forced upon Him by fierce temptations, intensified by all of the arts and cunning of the deceiver of the whole world. "It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. . . . Into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life’s perils in common with every soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss."—"Desire of Ages," pages 49, 50.8 In considering the life of Christ as revealing to humanity principles of righteousness and truth, justice and mercy, we repeat that these principles are in reality the character of Jehovah, of which the law is a transcript. Thus the life of Christ in human flesh must be a living expression of the principles set forth in the written law. It should be observed also that the keeping or the living of the law must consist in the doing of the opposite of that which the law condemns. To illustrate: Wherein the law prohibits the worship of other gods than Jehovah it does not prohibit worship, but rather enjoins that worship which is directed toward the only Being whom men ought to worship. Thus the keeping of the law is the life that is negative to sin, but positive to righteousness. Bearing this thought in mind will help us to see how the underlying principles of the law found living expression in the life of Christ. "He came to explain the relation of the law to man, and to illustrate its precepts by His own life of obedience." Doubtless Jesus’ fullest verbal declaration of the underlying principles of the law was the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5, 6, 7. The introduction to this marvelous discourse is "the beatitudes," nine in number, which so simply yet with surpassing beauty set forth the blessings bestowed of Heaven upon those who seek and develop righteousness—God-likeness of character. The Principles of the Decalogue
That His entire discourse is based upon the principles contained in the Decalogue—God’s standard of righteousness—is shown in a most emphatic way in His declaration that He came not to destroy the law, and that "whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5: 17-19); and further, by the fact that to show their underlying principles He made a careful analysis of several precepts of the Decalogue, declaring that anger against a brother is a violation of the sixth commandment (verses 21, 22); and that a lustful look constitutes the breaking of the seventh (verses 27, 28). He developed the vital principle of the third in verses 33-37; and of the sixth by advising non-resistance—turning the other cheek—as set in opposition to murder; and of the eighth by yielding that which is actually ours by right, in opposition to stealing (verses 38-42). He then proceeded to teach that the doing of the commandments is the law of life for the universe, manifested in the outflowing of love to God and to man, even tho the man be an enemy. As showing that a recognition in the life of the underlying principles of the law means perfection of character, He brought His sermon to a focal point in these words: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Verse 48. It had been foretold of Him that He would "magnify the law and make it honorable." The Sermon on the Mount was a masterful fulfilment of this prophecy, in precept. But His life must put the principles of the law in concrete form. Christ’s very life was the law in concrete form. If we desire to behold the beauty of the law, we have but to meditate upon the life of Immanuel. In the face of Satan’s temptation to worship him, He chose death, "even the death of the cross," rather than swerve from the worship of Jehovah for a moment. In utter unselfishness He fed the hungry, healed all manner of sickness, surrendered His whole life in patient sacrifice, with the climax of pouring out His blood on Calvary that a race of rebels might be forgiven and find mercy. Surely He demonstrated that the law, God’s standard of righteousness, is the law of life for the universe. As the underlying principle of Sabbath-keeping is peace and rest in the Creator, with a definite, Spirit-filled day given as a Heaven-sent blessing and as a test of loyalty, so Christ’s whole life-work on earth was to provide peace and rest in Jehovah, and to secure loyalty to Him. But why amplify on this phase of our theme when we can discover no deviation from righteous principles in His entire life! Absolutely nothing appears in His career that was not an expression of loyalty to God and an outflowing of love, mercy, and supreme sacrifice toward fallen humanity. Thus we have in the law a written standard of righteousness; and the standard met, or9 the law in action, in the life of the "Word made flesh." All that made His life beautiful was the doing of the law—the overflowing of love to God and man. And His was the most beautiful life of all the sons of Adam’s race. Behold the perfection, the matchless beauty of principles of character, in the God-man! For "Christ is the embodiment of living principles of righteousness. The recorded acts in His life are but samples of the outworking of those principles." The Christian Life a Life of Development of Principles in the Flesh
"Christ set up His tabernacle in the midst of our human encampment. He pitched His tent by the side of the tents of men, that He might dwell among us and make us familiar with His divine character and life." "His example declares that our only hope of eternal life is through bringing the appetites and passions into subjection to the will of God." But the Christian life is a growing up to perfection. At birth into the kingdom of heaven we have not attained "unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ," but the blessed promise is that we "may grow up into Him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ." Peter informs us as to the secret of Christian growth in these words: "Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil-speaking, as new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word, that ye may grow thereby." God’s laws are living principles—currents of life and power. The breaking of them is the severing of the connection with the fountain of life, which means death. But "what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The Omnipotent Hand Uplifts
To those who have not come up to His standard of righteousness, He is willing to extend His omnipotent hand to lift them up, that they may sit together with Him in heavenly places. To those who have no might He increases strength. From those who see His perfection, but on account of a load of sin can not attain to it, He removes the load of sin, and bears it Himself. He makes ample provision for the bringing of every thought into captivity to Himself. "To all who will do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure." "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him, which is the Head of all principality and power." "His life testifies that it is possible for us to obey the law of God; by His humanity, Christ touched humanity; by His divinity, He lays hold upon the throne of God." "Christ, the true temple of God’s indwelling, molded every detail of His earthly life in harmony with God’s ideal." "So our characters are to be builded 'for an habitation of God through the Spirit.' And we are to 'make all things according to the Pattern,' even Him who 'suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow His steps.'" 1. For what purpose did Christ come into the world?
"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." 1 Tim. 1:15. 2. What principle actuated the Father in sending His Son into the world to save sinners?
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved." John 3:16, 17. 3. From what does He save the sinner?
"And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins." Matt. 1:21. 4. Since He saves "His people from their sins," what is sin?
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin." 1 John 3:4, 5. 5. To what extent is He able to go in saving us from our sins?
"Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." Heb. 7:25. 6. How does the abounding grace of God compare with the abounding of sin?
"Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 5:20, 21. Harvest Toil
By Delwin Rees Buckner
All day I toiled, from turbid, troubled
dawn—
But timid midget mice were toiling, too,
Their brownish bodies damp with beads
of dew;
And so courageously I struggled on,
Recruiting frail, rebellious, stubborn brawn,
That flinched to feel the pangs that
pierced it through.
Yet, tho my muscles groaned, I half-way
knew
The pains would perish e'er the night be
gone.
Those harvest hours, whenever faint of
heart,
And wearied with the sheaves I needs
must wield,
I thought of Ruth, whom grieved Naomi
kissed
Good-by, but who clung to her, nor would
part,
And later gleaned in kindly Boaz' field
The wheat and barley that his reapers
missed. Weekly Rest Day Law
By G. L. Tufts
THE "Signs of the Times" states upon its title-page that "we should be glad to hear from you either favorably or adversely." We assume that it accepts the principles of a free press and free speech. Then in recent numbers of the "Times" frequent reference has been made to the writer of this article and an editorial mentions him by name. Rev. J. O. Corliss speaks of him as "extremely biased and illiberal," and quotes from several of my speeches. For these reasons I ask for a hearing through the columns of your paper. In the editorial columns of June 25, the astounding statement is made that our proposed weekly rest day law will make "loyalty to God a crime," by making Sunday labor on the part of Seventh-day Adventists and conscientious Jews a penal offense. Again it is stated that "you, through that Sunday law, demand that your seventh-day neighbor shall give up one whole day in the week of precious time — one sixth of all his income, sixteen and two thirds per cent of his earnings." Has not the editor been reading the articles he has published in recent issues of his own paper from the pen of Rev. Mr. Corliss in which the fact is mentioned that the proposed law would allow the Seventh-day Adventists to work on Sunday? Or does he publicly criticize a proposed measure and its author without informing himself upon the contents of said measure? We can not think that he intentionally misrepresented the facts to prejudice the minds of his readers. But for the information of all concerned permit me to say that the proposed law declares that its prohibitions against Sunday labor and business do not apply: "To any person who is a member of a religious society which observes some other day than Sunday as its day of worship and who actually keeps his place of business, or of his ordinary calling closed, and does not work for gain at his ordinary calling or at common labor on said day of worship." So the law will not prohibit an Adventist from working or attending to his regular business on Sundays. This surely protects you in your civil rights of working six days of the week. Any member of the Adventist Church who refrains from doing business on Saturday may conduct his business on Sunday as freely as on Monday. What more could you ask? But says Rev. Mr. Corliss, this exemption clause which frees the Adventists from the Sunday prohibitions of the law would in time be repealed by the same means that the law was adopted. I sincerely believe that such a move would be a failure, that it would weaken the constitutionality of the law if it were done and that it would be bitterly opposed by the proponents of the bill. For one, I should strongly oppose it. The writers in the "Signs of the Times" denounce our bill as "a religious law," "religious legislation," and "a union of church and state." Rev. Corliss argues that the exemption clause which protects the civil rights to Sunday labor on the part of those who for religious reasons observe another day of the week as their rest day proves it to be religious legislation. Then he plays on the feelings of his readers by declaring this would lead to a union of church and state and the persecutions of the Middle Ages. His imagination pictures the stake and its fiery flames and he hears the rumbling of the Juggernaut wheels. He is too clear a thinker to deny that this is sophistry and false reasoning to arouse the fears and prejudices of his hearers. If this reference to a "religious society" constitutes "religious legislation," then the law upon our statutes and in other states of the union to protect churches in their right of worship without being disturbed is surely religious legislation. Why does not Brother Corliss compass sea and land and devote his energies to the repeal of all such laws if religious legislation is such a calamity? Then there is the law passed a few years ago in California at the request of the churches, Catholic and Protestant, to exempt church property from taxation. If our proposed weekly rest law means a union of church and state, then a hundredfold more does this church property taxation law passed by the state legislature signify such a union. But I have yet to see a line in the "Signs of the Times" against this law. One would think that Brother Corliss would depict in glowing terms the Dark Ages upon us ready to devour the innocent followers of his faith. No, it is the province of government to protect human rights, both religious and civil. All this talk about "religious legislation" is simply for effect, to prejudice the minds of the unthinking crowd against a civil statute which is founded upon a natural law, and is an essential to the public health. Brother Corliss goes so far in his criticisms of the writer as to object to any law which has for its object the promotion of public morals, which is the highest function of civil law. So let not the readers of the "Signs of the Times" get frightened at a civil bill because it refers to a "religious society" which may observe Saturday as its rest day in order to protect them in their right to work on Sunday. If such a law could be construed to mean a union of church and state, then the courts would declare it unconstitutional and it would become a dead law. Why then do these ministers of the Adventist Church fight it so bitterly if they really believe it to be such an unlawful union? We fully agree with our opponents that all citizens stand on an equality irrespective of their religious beliefs. And the Supreme Court of California has declared that "Sunday laws leave a man's religious belief and practises as free as the air that he breathes." So the proposed law in no way interferes with the religious liberties of those who under the false name of "Religious Liberty Association" are its chief foes. Again we agree with those who oppose us that every citizen is entitled to work six days of the week without being guilty of a penal offense. But we claim that it is not dealing honestly with the public when the "Signs of the Times" represents that our proposed bill will make it a crime for Adventists to work on Sundays. We also fully agree that there should not be any union of church and state as we have it in some countries, and that men can not be made religious by law. But the Federal Court of the United States unanimously said: "All sorts of restrictions are imposed upon the actions of men, notwithstanding the liberty which is guaranteed to each. It is liberty regulated by just and impartial laws — laws setting aside Sunday as a day of rest are upheld, not from any right of the government to legislate for the promotion of religious observance, but from its right to protect all persons from the physical and moral debasement which comes from uninterrupted labor. Such laws have always been deemed merciful and beneficent laws, especially to the poor and dependent, to the laborers in our factories and workshops and in the heated rooms of our cities; and their validity has been sustained by the highest courts of the states." Again we claim that it is not dealing honestly with their readers when the ministerial correspondents of the "Signs of the Times" keep quoting, as they do in the issue of June 25th, the rejected opinion of Chief Justice Terry in the ex-parte Newman case as the present law of this state. In that same case of 1858, Justice Field dissented from the opinion given by Terry and one of his associates on the bench. And in 1861, three years after, the dissenting opinion of Justice Field was unanimously affirmed by that same highest court of our state in the ex-parte Andrews case. Likewise in other cases, as expressed by Chief Justice Morrison in behalf of the entire court in the ex-parte Burke case, in the following language: "The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Field in the case of ex-parte Newman was adopted (in 1861), as fully and correctly defining the views of the judges then constituting the court. The question came before the court again in ex-parte Bird, and the Sunday law was again declared constitutional and the Andrews case affirmed. It will thus be seen that the departure from the line of authority was of short duration, and that the highest court of this state, at an early day in our history, returned to the well-beaten track of judicial authority on this interesting and frequently discussed question. It is too late now to indulge in another departure, even if I were inclined to set aside the great weight of judicial opinions by which Sunday laws have been sustained and enforced. But I feel no such inclination. My views are fully in accord with those expressed by other judges, and regarding the matter from a purely secular standpoint, the law is a proper and salutary one. It imposes no restraint upon the conscience of any member of the community; it exacts from no person the performance of any religious rites or ceremonies; it prescribes no religious faith or belief. . . . Sunday laws leave his religious belief and practises as free as the air he breathes. It only forbids the carrying on of certain kinds of business on a certain day of the week, and the day selected in deference to the feelings and wishes of a large majority of the community is that day commonly denominated the Christian sabbath or Sunday." Thus the law which has been a dead letter ever since 1861 is resurrected by the "Signs of the Times" and in the writings of ministers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church this corpse is paraded as the living law of to-day as held by the Supreme Court of our state. And the saddest feature is that these same ministers are well informed upon the above facts, but withhold them from their readers and deceive those who look to them for instruction. May we be forgiven if we misjudge them. Another mistake in the same editorial is in denouncing Sunday laws as "un-American." My dear sir, is it not a fact that such laws have been upon the statutes of all states and with scarcely an exception are found in all codes to-day? Is it not a fact that Sunday is recognized as a non-judicial day by the Federal Constitution and by the constitutions of all the states? Does not our Congress and our state legislatures and our courts adjourn on Sundays? Do not ninety-nine per cent of our population regard Sunday as the national rest day? Did not our own Supreme Court declare that there is stronger concurrence on the validity of Sunday laws than on any other leading question "found in the history of American jurisprudence"? Are not the opponents of Sunday laws "un-American"? Again you make a mistake in representing that this law, to be enacted by "the people of11 California," is a law of the churches and for the churches. The majority of our citizens belong to no church. Every toiler is entitled as a natural right to a weekly rest day. The right of each to rest demands a law of rest for all. Those who oppose it are fighting against human rights and in behalf of human slavery to seven-day toil. We appeal to you in behalf of worn-out business men and weary laborers and in the name of the Carpenter of Nazareth to use the powers of your church for the overthrow of vice and not virtue. Berkeley, Cal., July 9, 1912. A Reply to Mr. Tufts
By J. O. Corliss
My attention has been called to a manuscript in hand designed for publication in the "Signs of the Times." In the aforesaid manuscript prepared by the gentleman whose name appears in the title of this article, some rather severe criticisms occur, which seem to call for an explanation from myself regarding statements found in articles contributed by me to the "Signs of the Times." His strictures, as will be seen from his contribution in this number of the paper, begin with the charge that I called him "extremely biased and illiberal." The fact is, that in the six articles which I contributed to a series on "California and Religious Liberty" which were printed in the "Signs" from May 21 to June 25, not one mention of Mr. Tufts's name appears. However, in my article which was given in the issue of June 18, there appears in the second paragraph from its head the words quoted by Mr. Tufts. But these words follow a recital of legislative history wherein Sunday laws had been refused. Then follow the words: "Notwithstanding the obvious wisdom of such a course, a few extremely biased and illiberal persons have been determined," etc. When that was written, Mr. Tufts was not particularly in mind, but the statement was made to cover the general course pursued by those engaged to secure Sunday laws. If in examining his own connection with the movement, the gentleman recognized the accuracy of the picture drawn, and applied the statement to himself, it does not seem just the thing to charge another with making a personal thrust. Reference is made by Mr. Tufts to a statement that in case a Sunday law obtains in California "loyalty to God" will be made a crime. In my article I did not put the matter in just that form, tho what I said implies the same. The conclusion was not my own, but was part of an opinion handed down from the California Supreme Court by Justice Henshaw as late as 1895. This is what he said: "It is not easy to see where or how this law protects labor from the unjust exactions of capital. A man's constitutional liberty means more than his personal freedom. It means, with many other rights, his right freely to labor, and to own the fruits of his toil. It is a curious law for the protection of labor which punishes the laborer for working. Yet that is precisely what this law does. The laboring barber, engaged in a most respectable, useful, and cleanly pursuit, is singled out from the thousands of his fellows in employments, and told that, willy-nilly, he shall not work upon holidays and Sundays after twelve o'clock noon. His wishes, tastes, or necessities are not consulted. If he labors he is a criminal. Such protection to labor carried a little further would send him from the jail to the poorhouse." It follows from this that any one who insists on loyally keeping God's Sabbath, the seventh day, and then works on Sunday, will be counted a criminal in the eyes of the proposed Sunday law, unless he is a bona fide "member of a religious society which observes some other day than Sunday as its day of worship." In other words, the proposed law will not permit a person observing Saturday as the Sabbath to work on Sunday unless he joins a Sabbath-keeping church, however loyal to God he may be. Suppose one lives isolated from such a church, and no opportunity is presented for12 him to unite with such a body, is not his loyalty to God in keeping the true Sabbath, counted a crime? Even so, the proposed law is against conscience. What right has any law to enforce church-membership upon one in order to avoid some stipulated penalty it provides? Is not this coming perilously near to a union of church and state? How many more steps are needed in the same direction to effect a complete union of the two? Let our Sunday-law advocates answer. My position on the proposed exemption clause for seventh-day observers is next criticized. I did state that the same power by which the exemption might be granted, could just as easily repeal that part of the law. No one can honestly deny this. In fact it has been done in the state of Arkansas, when bigoted souls desired to punish those who differed with them in religious faith. Besides, the proposed law for California provides for just such an exigency to be repeated. For instance, it says: "But provided, however, that the above exemptions, letters 'a' to 'v,' or any of them, SHALL NOT PRECLUDE THE ENACTMENT OF ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE LAW OR ORDINANCE by the legislature, or by any county, city and county, city or town, nor shall they nullify any more restrictive law or ordinance now or hereafter in force." (Capitals mine.) Just think of this, you who have been made to believe that the proposed Sunday law is so mild and generous in its provisions. At first you might buy luxuries, such as ice-cream, confectionery, mild drinks, tobacco and cigars. Dealers in these lines would be permitted to keep open shop, but one dealing in life's necessities, such as groceries, etc., would be fined anywhere from ten dollars to two hundred dollars for the first offense, and for a second offense a thirty-day sentence in jail would be imposed in addition to the fine. But any city, town, or county could vote these exemptions at once invalid within its precincts, and prohibit any work of any kind on Sunday, wherever the prejudices of the majority could command the influence to do so. Then it would not matter how carefully one observed some other day than Sunday, or whether he were a member of some society that did regard some other day. Do not be lulled into seeming security by the present form of the proposed measure, so long as it provides for local districts to enlarge upon it by severe restrictions after it becomes law. Please notice also that while provision is thus made for any voting district to add to the law's restrictions, none of these are to be permitted to "nullify" or cancel any restriction the law may contain upon its passage, "nor shall they nullify any more restrictive law or ordinance now or hereafter in force." Let all look well to this portion of the measure, and carefully study its possibilities for evil, before committing themselves to it favorably. "Brother Corliss" WOULD "compass sea and land" to work against the exemption of church property from taxes if it involved personal liberty in any degree. Let no one mistake the question at issue. A civil law which seeks to restrain personal, God-given liberty is what I and my associates oppose, and nothing more. Let no one cast dust before the eyes of the public by raising false issues like the taxation of church property, which brings no money income to its possessors. The issue before California in the proposed law is whether men and women are to be forced to rest on a religious day whether they will or not. The last item I care to notice of the gentleman's strictures on my contributions to the "Signs" is that in which he claims that I, among others, am not honest in presenting the opinion of Chief Justice Terry, rendered in 1858, as the "present law of the state." The gentleman could not have followed very closely the line of argument used, as to the point of Supreme Court decisions. Had he done so, he would have noticed that Justice Field's contention was covered, and that due weight was given it. We have never quoted Justice Terry's opinion except for one reason, and that is to show how logically he dealt with the case. I fear, however, that the same careful consideration has not been given by Mr. Tufts to the opinion handed down from the Supreme Court by Justice Henshaw as late as 1895, which was concurred in by the full court. As will be seen by this late opinion, already noticed in this article, Justice Field's opinion was completely reversed, and the later opinion has never since been questioned by the State Supreme Court. It is therefore not true that the "Signs" writers upon these Supreme Court opinions, withhold the facts from their readers, "and deceive those who look to them for instruction." Is it not more nearly true when one withholds the fact of the 1895 opinion from his readers, in order to make it appear that an opinion rendered in 1861 is now "the law of the state," that the guilt of deception rather attaches to that side of the controversy? I hold no personal grudge against Mr. Tufts. He is one for whom Christ died, and as such I have an interest in his salvation. I do, however, feel sorry to know that he has taken upon himself to champion a cause that is sure to prove a disaster to society, and a blot upon the Christian religion. May the good Lord speed the right in the controversy now on, and open the eyes of all to the true nature of its foundation. Opinions on Sunday-Law Conviction
"There can be but one opinion upon this decision among all liberal minded men. It is odious sophistry, unworthy of the age in which we live, and under it an American citizen has been condemned to spend the rest of his days in a dungeon, unless he shall stoop to deny the dictates of his own conscience, and dishonor his own manhood."—New York Commercial Advertiser. "The keeper of Saturday has an undoubted moral right to his convictions. More than this, his legal right to observe Saturday as a holy day and Sunday as a secular day, ought not to be called into question in free America by any civil authority. It would not be in doubt for a moment were it not for the existence of legal anachronisms that should have gone out with the witchcraft laws, or, at the latest, with George the Third."—Boston Daily Globe. "It seems absolutely incredible that in this age of enlightenment, in these free United States, men should suffer and families be plunged into sorrow because they have exercised a right of conscience guaranteed to them by the Constitution of their country. The sooner a test is appealed to the highest tribunal in the land for adjudication, the better for the honor of Tennessee and every state ridden by bad laws, passed in violation of individual liberty."—Chicago Daily Globe. "Not being able to leave his crops unworked for two days in the week, Mr. King plowed them on Sunday, after having kept the Sabbath the day before. He was arrested under the Sunday law; and in order to make it effective against him, it was alleged that his work on a farm on Sunday created a public nuisance. On this entirely untenable ground he has been harassed from court to court. He was a poor man, but has been supported by the friends of religious liberty. Mr. King has been greatly wronged, but his only remedy at law is under the law and constitution of Tennessee. It appears that for the present his remedy is denied him; and this being the case, he has no better course than to submit to the oppression and go to prison—to the convict camp, if it suits the convenience of his persecutors to send him there."—St. Louis Republic. "The principle involved is simple, and its application plain. The state has nothing to do with religion, except to protect every citizen in his religious liberty. It has no more right to prescribe the religious observance of sabbaths and holy days than to order sacraments and to ordain creeds."—New York World. "So long as the labor of Adventists on Sunday does not interfere with the rights of the Mosaic and Puritanic people on the same day, the prosecution of them seems neither more nor less than persecution."—Chicago Tribune. "People are asking if we are returning to the days of Cotton Mather or the Spanish Inquisition, that faithful, law-abiding citizens must be fined or driven from the country when their only offense consists in quietly carrying out the convictions of conscience."—Louisville Courier-Journal.