RELIGIOUS liberty has become so sacred in the eyes of the American people, and religious persecution so obnoxious, that any man, or body of men, appealing to religious liberty in defense of their practices, will be granted a speedy and impartial hearing. Until recent years, polygamy, unmolested, has been practiced by one branch of the Mormon Church, and every legal step toward its suppression has been opposed by its defenders, on the ground that such interference would be an abridgment of religious liberty; and even now there are those not in sympathy with the practice of polygamy, who doubt the right of the Government to prohibit it.
The object of this paper is to define the basis upon which polygamy may and should be prohibited, and to show that such prohibition is consistent with the principles of both civil and religious liberty.
The first question to be settled, is, whether marriage is a civil or religious relation. For if marriage is a religious relation it cannot be regulated by civil government. But marriage, as we shall prove, is, primarily, a civil relation; and since the few who will question this proposition are found among believers in religion, we will address this portion of the argument to them.
Mutual aid and companionship are among the primary objects for which marriage was instituted (Gen. 2:18); hence marriage is clearly a social relation. Another primary object of the marriage relation is the propagation of the race. Gen. 1:28. But reproduction is309wholly natural. Ps. 51:5; John 3:6. This argues the natural character of the marriage relation. It is dependent on natural conditions for its existence, and must end with mortality (Matt. 22:30; Rom. 7:2); hence is temporal and natural, not spiritual.
That marriage was instituted by the Creator does not prove that it is a spiritual relation. God has instituted government, and commands men to be subject to “the powers that be.” But our relation to governments ordained of God is, primarily, civil. If marriage is a religious ordinance, only those are married who are religious, or spiritual. But this principle would nullify all marriages between parties who reject all religion, but who are faithful and happy in obedience to their marriage vows. Further: If marriage is a religious relation, it must be a relation of the true religion, thus confining legitimate marriages to possessors of the true religion, not merely the professors of it. In other words, if marriage were a religious, or spiritual, relation, it would follow that all marital obligations between infidels, hypocrites, and all but the few who profess and possess the true religion, would be null and void. This is the position of the Church of Rome. “Marriage,” says the Romish Church, “is purely religious. We alone are the possessors and guardians of the true religion. Hence all marriages not sanctified by the church, are void.” This is the logical and inevitable conclusion to which they arrive, upon the assumption that marriage is a religious institution or sacrament. This conclusion, with all its disastrous consequences, is embodied in a formal decree of the Catholic Church. (See records of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, November, 1563.)
While maintaining that marriage is primarily, a civil relation, we would not be understood as excluding from it the benign influences of pure and undefiled religion. The blessings of religion ought to be taken, not only into the marriage relation, but into every relation of life, social and civil.
Having shown that marriage is a social or civil relation, and therefore within the purview of civil legislation, provided the rights of society demand it, we will next inquire, Do the rights of society demand the regulation of the marriage relation? We maintain that they do, and for the following reasons, among others: The State must regulate marriage, for the purpose of ascertaining the paternity of children. This the State must do, in order that it may impose upon the proper parties the parental care of the child, that the tax-payer who is not responsible for its existence, may not be charged with its support. Hence it is proper and just for the State to require, as it does, that those entering upon the marriage relation shall furnish competent evidence of having en-
tered upon that relation, and that they accept its duties and responsibilities.
Having shown that the government may in right, and must in justice to the tax-payer, regulate the institution of marriage, we next inquire, May it regulate that relation to the extent of prohibiting plural marriages? It will be conceded that it is the province and the duty of civil government to protect its citizens; and, if any right of the citizen is invaded by the practice of polygamy, and such practice can be shown to be a menace to the peace and good order of society, irrespective of religious prejudice, it can and should be prohibited by civil law. That polygamy is an invasion of the natural rights of man we shall proceed to prove.
All men are created equal, and are by nature endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which is the right to the undivided companionship of a wife. But, while this proposition will not be disputed, our position is, that for men to take unto themselves a plurality of wives, is abnormal and will invade that right. Polygamy is abnormal, since nature has made no provision for it. For that institution to be normal and within the reach of every man, nature must provide at least twice as many females as males; or, if we take the number of wives associated with Brigham Young in the marriage relation as a precedent (and once admit the principle the number cannot be restricted), nature would have to produce more than twenty times as many women as men. “It is fully established,” says the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” “that among all races of mankind, the number of male infants born slightly exceeds the number of females, the ratio being about twenty-one males to twenty females.” After mentioning the comparative mortality of the two sexes, the same authority says: “Taking the human race as a whole the numbers of married and marriageable men and women are practically equal.” (“Encyclopædia Britannica” Supplement, Vol. 4, pages 222, 223). For one half of the male population to take even two wives, or one more than is allotted to each man by nature, would be to deprive the other half of the one wife which nature has provided.
Polygamy is therefore a violation of the natural rights of man, and as such, should be prohibited by civil law. The statement that the supply has always equaled the demand in countries where polygamy has been practiced, even if true, loses its force, when we consider that the practice has been restricted to the wealthy and powerful. Even in Utah among the modern polygamists, the number of wives is restricted by a property qualification, and even then, the supply has not equaled the demand, as will be shown further on. All such restrictions, based on property or other qualifications, are inconsistent with the equal rights of man, and the principles of our free Government.
The Mormon community in Utah is a practical and forcible illustration of the fact that polygamy is an abnormal state of society. It is an acknowledged fact that this community does not furnish the excess of females required to meet the demand for a plurality of wives, their offspring there, as elsewhere, being about equally divided between the sexes. This demand has been met by the efforts of missionaries who have induced women (in some cases wives and mothers who deserted their families), to join the Mormon community and add another wife to the already well supplied Mormon husband. To say that the females drawn from non-polygamous districts to furnish women for polygamous communities do not materially alter the proportionate number of marriageable men and women in those districts, does not in the least militate against the argument. Having shown that in principle it violates the inalienable rights of men, the limited extent of its practice cannot be advanced in support of the institution. The State should not abolish its laws against polygamy (thus giving it legal sanction), and then wait until one half of the male population of the country are deprived of their rights, in order to prove that the practice would invade natural rights. As well wait until the seals are destroyed, to prove that the present method of killing will destroy them, before enacting laws against their destruction. The necessity of the Government thus taking precautionary measures, was advocated by Secretary Blaine in the recent seal-fishery dispute, and admitted by the English Premier. All the Government needs to know, is, that the practice will invade the rights of men; its duty in the matter is then made clear. It must prohibit the practice in order to preserve those rights.
Having shown that the practice of polygamy invades the rights of men to the undivided companionship of a wife, we will next show that it is an invasion of the natural rights of women to the undivided companionship of a husband, which nature by its producing as many men as women, proves to be her natural right.
The husband by taking the second wife, invades the rights of the first wife to the undivided companionship of a husband. To say that both women voluntarily accept the relation, does not place the matter beyond the jurisdiction of civil government, because the Government cannot sanction the invasion of natural rights even though the parties are agreed. It may be objected, that because the Government cannot sanction the practice, it does not follow that it must prohibit it. It is true the Government cannot be regarded as sanctioning a practice by not prohibiting it when the practice does not come within its jurisdiction. But, since the practice of polygamy has been proved to be a violation of natural rights, the very310thing for which governments are established to prevent, this comes within the rightful jurisdiction of civil government, and a failure to prohibit it is to give it legal sanction. The absence of law prohibiting a practice, when that practice comes within the jurisdiction of civil government, is to give the practice the sanction and protection of government. To illustrate: The government has no law against murder. A man is murdered, and his friends bring the murderer before the authorities for punishment; but they are told the State has no law against murder, and orders are given that the murderer be set at liberty. By this the government sanctions the act of murder. A failure to prohibit the act makes the government responsible for it.
Thus it is with the invasion of the rights of the first wife by her husband’s taking other wives. A failure on the part of the government to prohibit it gives the act the sanction of the government, and, having by its failure to prohibit the act given legal sanction to it, it cannot contradict itself by declaring the marriage illegal at some subsequent time in order to secure to the woman her rights. The law ought therefore to prohibit polygamy that it may be faithful to its duty of securing to its citizens their natural rights.
Neither can the plea that polygamy is practiced as a part of the religion of the Mormon, affect the argument. No religious practices, however sacred in the eyes of the believer, can receive the sanction of a just government, if they infringe upon the rights of others.
Again, to protect the Mormons in their practice of polygamy on account of their religious convictions, and prohibit the same practice among others, would be class legislation, which is opposed to the principles of free government. If polygamy is permitted in Utah, it must be permitted in every State and Territory in the Union. If this permission is granted the Mormon it must be granted the “Gentile;” and, since the “Gentile” has not the religious convictions which alone make order possible in a polygamous society, it would be destructive of the family relation, and, through that, destructive of civilized government itself.
For these reasons, we arraign this whole system as unnatural, an infringement of human rights, a menace to the good order of society, and maintain that it may be suppressed by law without infringing any principle of religious liberty, and must be suppressed in order to preserve civil liberty.
A. F. BALLENGER.
A Lesson From Paine.
INFIDELS of the present day profess to believe that bigotry and intolerance are inseparable from Christianity, that it is indeed part and parcel of Christianity. But they should learn better than this, even from their patron saint, Thomas Paine. In his “Rights of Man,” Paine says:—
All religions are, in their nature, mild and benign, and united with principles of morality. . . . How is it that they lose their native mildness, and become morose and intolerant? By engendering the State with the Church, a sort of mule animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called the Church established by law. . . . The Inquisition in Spain does not proceed from the religion originally professed, but from this mule animal engendered between the Church and State.
And again, of governments established by force, Paine says:—
Governments thus established last as long as the power to support them lasts; but that they might avail themselves of every engine in their favor, they united fraud to force, and set up an idol which they called divine right, and which, in imitation of the Pope who affects to be spiritual and temporal, and in contradiction to the founder of the Christian religion, twisted itself afterward into an idol of another shape, called Church and State.
Paine, infidel though he was, knew full well, and was man enough to acknowledge it, that the doctrine of Church and State was not Christian doctrine in any proper sense of the word, and it would be well if his disciples of the present day had equal discernment, and as great candor.
The Massing of the Forces.
By W. H. M.
In an address delivered at the Lakeside Assembly, in August, Miss Frances E. Willard thanked God for the marshalling of the National Reform soldiery “marching as for war.”
At such a time, when reinforcements are so rapidly joining themselves to the ranks of the party which assumes to be the army of moral reform, it does not come amiss to enumerate the detachments of which this marching host is composed.
Dr. McAllister says of these gathering forces, in the preface to his “Manual of Christian Civil Government:” —
These days of peace do not call patriots to the battle-field. The God of nations is blessing us with rest from war. But the Christian patriot’s ear catches stirring calls to more strenuous and momentous conflicts than any “battle of the warriors” with its “confused noise, and garments rolled in blood.” The enemies of our national Christianity are both powerful and active. They have begun their attack. Our Christian institutions of Government are at stake. And the same love of country that would summon the patriot to the field of battle, summons him now to the field of moral conflict, where the friends and foes of our American national Christianity are deploying and skirmishing, and must soon come to the decisive engagement.
The issue is stated here. Although by implication, still it is direct implication. What is it? It is between “American national Christianity” and the Christianity of the Bible,—God’s religion pure and undefiled, which savoreth not of the things which be of this world.
In whatever country it has been established, and by whatever name it has been called, whether it has been the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, the Church of England, or the American national Christianity, the intent and effect of the organization of a “national Christianity” has invariably been to uphold the “traditions of men,” and maintain them in the face of the divinely spoken truth of the word of God. This is the case now. Can the result be expected to differ from past similar conflicts? It cannot, except in degree. And this is the only way in which it will differ. Prophecy shows it surely, clearly, definitely. But then the end comes. Here is the final deliverance, and the right does triumph eternally. Sin and wrong die with the wicked and the unjust, and exist no longer. The joy of eternal bliss and the grandeur of heavenly perfection are then attained. But these hosts, who call to one another with such sounding of the trumpet, and gather with such worldly pomp and pageantry, truly and literally an “army with banners,” should stop and ask themselves who is it that will be called “great in the kingdom of heaven?” and who is it that “in no case shall enter” therein?
Did not He in whose name they profess to assemble, accept the crown of thorns as a lowly symbol of his ministering service to mortality? and did He not most sternly reprove his disciples when they spoke the things which savored of this world? And who did He say should be with him in his kingdom? Was it not the persecuted, the peacemakers, the pure in heart, the merciful, the meek, the mourners, the poor in spirit, and those that hunger and thirst after righteousness? Are those terse sentences, in which Christ named the host of the blessed, descriptive of the serried ranks that march as for war in behalf of a “national Christianity?”
Let them who would choose between the mortal error into which the Jews fell at the first coming of Christ, (when they in their vainglory of race, and pride of the world looked for him to assume an earthly scepter, and his true kingdom which is not of time and death), take thought not to fall into such an error at his second coming. At that time the Jews stood for a distinctively national Christianity, with the Messiah as their earthly king. Who is it that stands similarly, for a distinctively “American national Christianity”? It is the National Reform party, that for twenty-seven years has been a growing power in this country.
Who is it with clear-voiced utterance, “local, State, national, and world-wide” in the scope of its influence, says that Christ shall be king of this transitory, sin-defiled world,—King of its despotic and corrupt courts—of its camps of license and violence—of its commercial robbery and injustice,—King of its tyrannical and extortionate customs, and of its imperfect Constitutions,—and that through the gateway of political corruption Christ shall enter the realm of law—human law? It is the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, in unison with the National Reform party.
Next to this detachment from the motherhood of the State, comes a maidenly contingent of human loveliness, fit only for a war of roses indeed, which steps in delicately, stately trippings to the martial music of National Reform.
With the sweetest and loveliest and last311of fashions, graceful concessions to a silken Christianity, they say, with haughty humility which fits so well their perfect manner and easy courtliness of bearing, “We are the ‘King’s Daughters,’ we command you ‘In His Name.’”
But who are these who pass as a brook of rippling youthful laughter fit to flow through the golden streets? It is the Young People’s Society of Christian Endeavor, the children’s crusade of the nineteenth century, marching to as pitiful an end, and for as futile a purpose, as were the Crusaders when led by fanatic zeal to the conquest of the holy sepulchre.
As a rear-guard to this marvellous religious army of the world, marches a vast body of churchmen at arms, whose very presence is a benediction, and whose benign graciousness assures to the motley host protection and safety for time and eternity,—the Evangelical and Ministerial Alliance.
As outposts, and flying patrol along the whole line, the Law and Order Leagues are stationed.
This is “the National Reform soldiery ‘marching as for war.’”
Does this display of worldly influence and human force tally well with that meek and saintly patience which the Bible says must characterize those who become subjects of our Lord and of his Christ in his eternal kingdom?
W. H. M.
THE opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Cassody is, to our understanding, clear and conclusive. Bible-reading in public schools has the form and intention of religious worship; and this being the fact, then to compel the people by taxation to erect and support public schools, in which such reading is a practice, is to compel them by law to erect and support places of worship.—New York Independent.
NATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ASSOCIATION.
DECLARATION of PRINCIPLES.
We believe in the religion taught by Jesus Christ.
We believe in temperance, and regard the liquor traffic as a curse to society.
We believe in supporting the civil government, and submitting to its authority.
We deny the right of any civil government to legislate on religious questions.
We believe it to be our right, and should be the privilege, of every man to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.
We also believe it to be our duty to use every lawful and honorable means to prevent religious legislation by the civil government; that we and our fellow-citizens may enjoy the inestimable blessings of both religious and civil liberty.
OFFICES.
43 Bond Street, New York City;
225 A St., N. E., Washington; 28 College Place, Chicago.
C. Eldridge, — — — — — — — — — — President.
W. H. McKee, — — — — — — — — — — Secretary.
It is remarkable that in this country of boasted religious liberty, Christians use the civil courts to persecute other Christians who insist upon obeying the Bible by working six days in the week and resting on the seventh. —Denison (Texas) Gazetteer.
HEALTH FOOD CRACKERS
Health produces wealth; and good health can not be made of poor material. The agitation of this health question for some years in the past has created a demand for
HEALTHFUL FOODS
in the manufacture of which we have for the past ten years been engaged. The demand having constantly increased, we have found it necessary to greatly increase our facilities by the addition of new and the latest improved machinery, etc. We are now well equipped, and prepared to fill all orders, and to extend our business into new fields. Our Foods and Crackers are made from the choicest grains and are strictly pure, justly entitling them to the name above given.
SAMPLE PACKAGES
Of assorted Health Food Crackers sent post-paid on receipt of fifty cents. Write for descriptive circular and price list to
Battle Creek Bakery Co.,163 WEST MAIN ST.,Battle Creek, Mich.
TEN LECTURES
By John Harvey Kellogg
ON
NASAL CATARRH
Its Nature, Causes, Prevention, and Cure, and Diseases of the Throat, Eye, and Ear, due to Nasal Catarrh; with a chapter of
CHOICE PRESCRIPTIONS
BY J. H. KELLOGG, M. D.,
Medical Superintendent of the Largest Medical and Surgical Sanitarium in the World.
The work consists of 120 pages, and is embellished with a colored frontispiece and SIX BEAUTIFULLY COLORED PLATES, besides many illustrative cuts of the throat and nasal cavity in health and disease. This little work costs only 30 cents, and is in great demand.
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO.,
43 BOND STREET, NEW YORK.
OR OAKLAND, CAL.
GOOD FOR ALL TIME!
THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW
THIS PAMPHLET CONTAINS THE ARGUMENTS IN BEHALF OF THE RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE BLAIR SUNDAY-REST BILL, WHICH MR. JONES PRESENTED BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, DECEMBER 13, 1888.
Mr. Crafts has pronounced the report as published
“Mighty Interesting Reading.”
And Mr. Jones’ comments make it more so. His argument is enlarged to what it would have been without Senator Blair’s interruptions, objections, and counter-arguments, and is accompanied with answers to all of his objections and counter-arguments. As the Sunday question is now a living issue, this treatise will be interesting to all classes, especially Legislators, lawyers, judges, and other public men. The argument is based on Scripture and history, constitution and law, showing the limits of the civil power, the unconstitutionality of the Sunday bill, an analysis of the Sunday laws and other religious legislation of the different States, the
Sunday-Law Movement of the Fourth Century,
AND THE
Sunday-Law Movement of the Nineteenth Century.
The Methods Used in Securing Indorsements to the Petition for the Blair Bill, and the Workings of Such Sunday Laws as are Proposed for the United States.
The Work Contains 192 Pages and will be Sent Post-paid on Receipt of 25c.
Send for it! Read it! Send it to Your Friends!
Address all Orders to
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO.,
43 BOND STREET, NEW YORK.
OR OAKLAND, CAL.
NEW EDITIONS
By A. T. JONES
CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION
IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN
By A. T. JONES,
One of the Editors of the AMERICAN SENTINEL.
Scriptural, Logical, Plain, and Forcible.
THIS IMPORTANT WORK SHOWS CLEARLY THE RELATION THAT SHOULD EXIST BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE AT THE PRESENT TIME, AS PROVEN BY THE BIBLE AND HISTORY OF THE PAST TWENTY-FIVE CENTURIES.
CHAP. I outlines vividly the relation that existed between “Christianity and the Roman Empire.”
CHAP. II distinguishes between “What is due to God and what to Cæsar.”
CHAP. III shows for what purpose the “Powers that Be” are ordained.
CHAP. IV ably discusses “The Religious Attack upon the United States Constitution, and Those Who Are Making It.”
CHAP. V unmasks “Religious Legislation,” calling special attention to the Blair Sunday Bill now pending in Congress.
CHAP. VI is devoted to the “Sunday-Law Movement in the Fourth Century, and its Parallel in the Nineteenth.”
CHAP. VII shows the Workings of Sunday Laws when they are enforced.
These chapters, with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States which are printed in Appendices C and D, make this treatise INDISPENSABLE TO EVERY LOVER OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION
Is a Pamphlet of 183 Large Octavo Pages, in English, Price 25 Cents; and in German, 228 Pages, Price, 35 Cents.
MILLIONS OF COPIES
Should be Placed in the Hands of Thinking People at once. It Clearly Defines what Position American Citizens should Sustain Toward the Effort now on Foot to Secure Religious Legislation.
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO.,
43 BOND STREET, NEW YORK,
OR OAKLAND, CAL.
DO YOU USE A FOUNTAIN PEN?
Then you need the COMBINED INK BOTTLE AND PEN FILLER, consisting of a bottle holding ink sufficient to fill a pen 8 or 10 times, with a Patent Rubber Cork and Filler, all inclosed in a neat wooden case with a screw top, making the safest, most complete, compact, and convenient article for the use of traveling men and others now extant. Weighs when filled with ink less than three ounces.
Imitation Rose-wood case, 25c.
Real Box-wood, “ 50c.
