THERE are many who seem to believe that the keeping of the Sabbath is not simply an individual obligation. They seem to think a man is unable to meet the requirements of the fourth commandment of God’s law unless his neighbor assists him to keep the Sabbath, by himself refraining from all unnecessary work on that day. The great plea made for the enforcement of Sunday laws is that those who desire to keep that day holy are hindered from so doing by the unnecessary work done by those who do not regard the day as the Sabbath.
But this claim is not true in the least degree; because if it were true, God would be unjust in his requirements; God requires a man to keep the Sabbath holy unto him. The command, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” means much more than simply refraining from secular employment on that day. The cessation of labor is only the outward sign of an inward regard for the holy ordinance of the Sabbath day.
Now if the Sabbath can not be kept holy by one man while his neighbor disregards its sacredness, and profanes the holy day by following his ordinary vocation, and at the same time God does require a man to keep it holy; does not God require of a man a thing he can not do unless his neighbor assists him by himself refraining from labor on that day? If God did require such a thing of a man without guaranteeing to him that his neighbor would do his part by refraining from work on that day, the Almighty would be requiring that which is unjust. On the other hand, if God had made provision that he who has no regard for the Sabbath should be compelled to conform to an outward observance of that day that he who does reverence the day might be able to keep it holy, then God would compel an outward conformity to his requirement, without inward reverence for the day. Such a thing God never does, it is not his character to coerce; and those who would circumscribe the freedom of others, do not work the works of God.
The Almighty is not unjust. “Justice and judgment are the habitation of his86throne.” He requires nothing of a man that he can not do even though the whole world is opposed to him. It is not true that one man can disturb his neighbor in such a way as to interfere with his acceptance with God in the observance of his holy day.
God requires the best and holiest regard for his day we can give under the circumstances which surround us, and over which we can have no control. The commandment says that a man and all he controls—his animals, his servants, and the stranger that abides with him—shall rest on that day, and when a man conforms to that requirement, sincerely and heartily, his service is acceptable to his Maker, whether his neighbor observes the day or not.
What one man can do and be accepted of God another can do and be accepted; because God is no respecter of persons. I know that I can serve God by resting on his Sabbath even though thousands of busy men are toiling all around me regardless of the sacred claims of God’s holy day. My conscience could not be troubled because they are at work. I know this because I have kept the day under just such circumstances, and felt not the slightest compunction of conscience because others did not choose to observe the Sabbath day with me. God accepted my service because I kept the day according to the commandment made to me individually and to every other individual human being on the earth.
A great political lecturer was once addressing a large audience. During his speech he made a very bold statement. A man in the audience arose and stated a little personal experience which completely contradicted the bold statement of the lecturer. “This,” says the man, “I know to be a fact by my own personal experience; and how do you harmonize it with your statement.” “But,” replied the lecturer, “I know nothing of this fact you state, I never heard of it before.” The man in the audience then replied, “But my knowledge of this fact, no matter how limited, is not to be offset by your ignorance of it however extensive that may be.”
So with Sabbath observance, if one man knows he can render acceptable service to God by keeping his Sabbath, even though thousands are working on that day, it makes no difference how many may say they know nothing of his experience. There is not only one but there are thousands who can testify to a sense of acceptance with God in resting on his Sabbath, when the world around them was engaged in its usual secular business, bustle, and wickedness.
There is only one way in which a man can disturb his neighbor’s conscience by working on the day his neighbor observes as the Sabbath. He can not disturb his conscience in the least if that conscience is first right between himself and his God. If it is not right, it can be very easily disturbed by the course of some one whose conscience is “void of offense toward God and men.”
To illustrate: Railroads and steamboats have run, and factories have been operated all over this country on Sunday, and they have been comparatively unmolested, in their disregard of the day. But who has been prosecuted for Sunday work? A typical case is that of a quiet farmer in the State of Tennessee, who was arrested for working in his back fields, where he was out of sight or hearing of any religious gathering, and where he could disturb no one by his work. What was there about this man that he should be prosecuted for quietly working where he could disturb no one, while at the same time thousands of busy hands were running railroads, steamboats, telegraph lines, and following almost every vocation under the sun? —Because that man had conscientiously rested on another day, and had performed his duty to his Maker, and felt in his heart not the slightest regard for Sunday as a sacred day. This case and a few similar ones show where the efforts of those who favor Sunday legislation are tending.
It is not so much those who work on Sunday who offend, as it is those who deny the sacredness of the day by resting on some other day, which is sacred to them, and which answers the demands of the conscience. In the Salem witchcraft fanaticism men and women were condemned, not for being witches and wizards but for denying the reality of witchcraft, and if a man confessed himself a wizard or a woman confessed herself a witch, it was almost sure to release them from the death to which they had been condemned. The parallel between the insane fanaticism of that time and the movement in our day which seeks to put a popular belief in the fundamental law of the land on an undeniable legal basis is very significant. Persecution has never been directed so much against those who denied God, as against those who departed from the popular forms of worshiping God.
SANFORD O. LANE.
The question of closing the World's Fair on Sunday has been avoided by the Senate of the New York Legislature. This is the account given by the Sun:—
Senator Hunter's resolution to ask Congress to appropriate no money to the World's Fair unless it is closed on Sunday, came up in the Senate and caused one of the religious debates which is a regular thing in one house or the other almost every day. Senator Roesch moved to refer the resolution to the World's Fair Commissioners from New York. He made a speech commenting on the Puritan fathers, and saying that this country should not follow them in their bigotry and narrowness.87
The Rev. Senator Edwards said that no one wanted the World's Fair to be open on Sunday, and that there were more than ten millions of Christian people who were strongly opposed to any desecration of Sunday. There was no reason why the World's Fair at Chicago should not follow the example of the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia.
Senator O'Connor said that there are others in this country than the descendants of the Puritan fathers. The Christian religion is no part of the fundamental law of this country, and the Legislature has no right to discriminate in the passage of this resolution against people of other religions, who observe some other day than Sunday for their Sabbath.
“I believe in religion,” said Senator Brown, “but I do not think that an observance of the Sabbath day best consists in staying indoors and praying twenty-four hours. Sunday should be a day of rest and not of bondage.”
Senator McClelland said that they might as well close up Coney Island as the World's Fair, for Coney Island is much wickeder than the World's Fair would be.
Senator Roesch's motion to refer Senator Hunter's resolution to the World's Fair Commissioners was carried by a vote of sixteen to fourteen.
The Mail and Express taunts the Democrats with having “dodged a vote,” and of having been afraid to face the question. These daily “religious debates” have taken a political color entirely, and furnish a sure forecast of the national religion of the National Reformers.
THE greatest praise government can win is, that its citizens know their rights and dare maintain them.—Wendell Phillips.
A PRIVATE letter gives information that five Seventh-day Adventists, Brethren Ward, John Dortch, Moon, Lowry, and Stem, of Springville, Tenn., have been indicted for Sunday labor.
ABOUT one hundred and fifty informations have been lodged against newsdealers and others in Pittsburg, for violation of the Sunday law, up to the present time; and in nearly every case a fine of twenty-five dollars has been imposed, with costs added. These cases have all been appealed, and March 11 fixed for their final hearing.
SENATOR PETTIGREW, of South Dakota, chairman of the Select Senate Committee on the quadro-centennial, is quoted in the Washington Evening Star as having said to a reporter,—
“I have read about everything that has been published on this matter, and I fail to see why the Fair should be open on Sundays. This is a Christian Nation and so long as it remains so the sanctity of the Sabbath must be preserved; when we legislate in opposition to one of the commandments our title to the possession of Christianity will be difficult of maintenance. . . . If the Fair was opened on Sunday the railroads would bring from surrounding towns immense crowds of people; the day would be a holiday, and we, as a Christian Nation, would be a party to the abandonment of the Sabbath as a day of rest and meditation—reminder of the obligations of man to man.”
“The economical point of view must not be overlooked. Since the issue has been raised, and the question debated, I am satisfied that more people—two to one—will stay away from the Fair, if it is opened on Sunday, than the additional people who would attend on Sunday only. A Sunday Fair means decreased gate receipts.”
It will be noticed that although the Senator claims to have read about everything on the subject, he has absorbed nothing but National Reform theories. Not much can be said for the depth of thought shown by such a man, whose business is to understand the highest legislative questions that can come before the country, and yet who can see no distinction between “legislating in opposition to one of the commandments” and the pursuance of the proper neutral course of the civil authority in religious questions.
It is not sufficiently emphasized that the Jew is left absolutely free to observe the seventh day. He can close his shop; he can refuse to work.—W. F. Crafts, 1884.
The liberty of rest for each demands the law of rest for all. W. F. Crafts, 1892.
What has wrought the change? If in 1884 the Jew was “left absolutely free to observe the seventh day” without a law compelling others to observe it also, how is it that in 1892 the Christain is not free to keep Sunday without a “law of rest for all”?
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 is the 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 St., New York City.
1225 F St., N. W., Washington, D. C.
28 College Place, Chicago, Ill.
12th and Castro Sts., Oakland, Cal.
267 West Main St., Battle Creek, Mich.
R. C. PORTER — PRESIDENT.
A. F. BALLENGER — SECRETARY.
The following from the Pittsburg Dispatch is a telling commentary on the value and propriety of Government chaplains:—
“Mr. Milburn, the blind chaplain of the House, has made quite a reputation for the originality of his prayers. Few clergymen are more confidential and intimate in the language with which they hold what is here called an executive session with the Deity; and few are more liberal with advice to man, and claiming to have their inspiration direct from Heaven. Mr. Milburn has often incensed members by his criticism of the conduct of the House and even of individual members, in the guise of a prayer; and many of them have seriously canvassed the propriety of abolishing what is, at best, in both House and Senate, a hypocritical, hollow, and contemptible show of piety. There is no greater burlesque of religion, and the solemnity which should attend its public practice, than these prayers and their surroundings.
“I have often listened to the very eloquent prayer of the Senate Chaplain when there were but two or three senators present, and once when only one bowed his head in mock reverence to the performance. I use the adjective advisedly, for the senator is well known to be an agnostic.
“In the House, though, of course, the number present at prayer is larger, the burlesque is even more evident. The sum and purpose of the employment of a chaplain is to have the fact go to the religious element of the country to show how pious and reverent the congressmen are, in that they can not proceed to business without a prayer. Of course, the religious element is not expected to discover that both senators and representatives carefully remain away from prayers, unless it is more convenient to be present. But if they must have prayers for the effect upon the religious element they don’t want to be scolded by the chaplain. He is not employed for that. He is not paid to give congressmen any moral or other advice whatever, but merely to play the part of a pious lay figure in the show windows of the capitol, to suggest the splendid character of the goods within, the Simon Pure religious stuff, and no shoddy or fustian. They can stand a little scolding as a sort of novelty, a bit of prayerful comedy, but that sort of thing every morning, following upon the liberal congressional breakfast, becomes irritating and conducive to dyspepsia. Therefore, Mr. Milburn has been quietly informed that if he does not want to start a movement for the abolition of his office it would be well for him to confine himself simply to an invocation of divine Providence to give as much of his favor as is fair and deserving to the American House of Representatives, and there let the matter rest.
“On the other hand, Hon. Joseph J. Little, of the Twelfth New York district, elected to fill out the unexpired term of Hon. Roswell P. Flower, comes in with a joint resolution providing that the prayers of the chaplains shall be printed in the Record as a part of the congressional proceedings. This is an innovation that will hardly obtain while Chaplain Milburn continues his moral lectures to the House in his voluminous prayers.”
The Sun reports the proceedings of the Legislature, in passing the appropriation bill for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, thus:—
“Sunday and religion were discussed in the Senate, and there was one of the most earnest debates of the session. The occasion was the bill to have New York City appropriate seventy thousand a year to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, on condition that the Museum be kept open every day of the week, Sundays included. The bill had passed the Assembly without discussion.
“Senator Hunter moved to strike out the Sunday clause. He said that the bill offered a bribe to the Museum authorities to desecrate the Sabbath day.
“Senator O’Connor said that milk wagons ran on Sunday, and that it was as good for the people to see pictures on Sunday as to get milk and newspapers.
“‘This is a bid for money at the expense of morality,’ said Senator Smith. ‘It’s bad enough in Central Park now without making it worse by passing this bill. People now on Sunday look at the animals, eat sandwiches, drink beer, and see snakes. It’s not right for the State to put a premium on breaking the Sabbath day.’
“The Rev. Senator Edwards made the principal speech in opposition to the bill. ‘Why break the Sabbath,’ he said, ‘and why make an appropriation of seventy thousand dollars for breaking down the American Sabbath? Degradation in morals will surely follow. Stand by the old faith. Those who go to the Museum on Sundays are not the poor people and the working people who could not go on some other day, but loungers who might go as well on a week day.’
“The bill passed by a vote of seventeen to eight. The negative votes were cast by moral Republicans and the Rev. Senator Edwards.”
The real meaning of the general alliance to close the World's Fair on Sunday is understood by some, as is shown by this note from the Eye, Snohomish, Wash. :—
It is seldom that the so-called representatives of God and the devil shake hands over the smoking chasm, so to speak, and co-operate in the interests of a few selfish bigots who want special legislation from Congress to drive “trade” to their doors; but such a picture is presented in Chicago, where the saloon keepers and the breweries, under instruction from their associations, are co-operating with the different church denominations in an attempt to have the World's Fair closed on Sunday. “It is calculated that from one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand people will visit the exhibition on Sundays, and that would take away the saloon patronage on that day,” is the reason given by liquor manufacturing and selling organizations for their action. With the saloons, as it seems to be with the churches, the closing of the Fair on Sunday is a strictly business proposition; in each case it will drive patronage to their doors because there would be no other resorts open. If the church organizations desire to work in the real interests of morality, let them concentrate their efforts in securing the closing of the Chicago saloons on Sunday and stop their opposition to the opening of the Fair on that day!
This is twitting on facts, but the last sentence embodies an error. To attempt to close the saloons on Sunday, or any one day, and thus legalize them for the remainder of the week, is not working in the real interests of morality. The church which concentrates its efforts on the closing of saloons, and the stoppage of the liquor traffic on Sunday is striving to serve both God and Bacchus. God will not have his Church serve him but one seventh of the time. The principles of righteousness are the same for all days of the week so far as concerns the questions of temperate living.
THE February issue of The Quarterly Register of Current History (Detroit, Mich., $1.00 a year), is a model one. Without beating about the bush, it strikes right at the very heart of its subject-matter. From a clear and interesting treatment of international affairs, it proceeds to a series of splendid articles on “Affairs in Europe,” “Affairs in Africa,” “Affairs in Asia,” and, last but not least, “Affairs in America.” Under this last heading is included, the presidential discussion, the proceedings of Congress and the Legislatures, the state of trade, finance, and general politics. An elaborate treatise on the latest developments in Canada is an interesting feature of the number.
The undersigned, being a regularly appointed transportation agent, will take pleasure in giving information concerning ships and arranging for a voyage for any one desiring such services. Berths on steamers should be secured as far in advance of date of sailing as possible in order to get the best available position. Write for list of proposed sailings, rates of passage, etc.
T. A. Kilgore,
43 Bond st.,
New York.
ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE
TO THE BIBLE,
On an Entirely New Plan.
Containing every word in alphabetical order, arranged under its Hebrew or Greek original, with the literal meaning of each and its pronunciation. Exhibiting about 311,000 references, marking 30,000 VARIOUS READINGS in the NEW TESTAMENT. Designed for the simplest reader of the English Bible. By Robert Young, LL.D. Fourth revised authorized edition, printed on heavy paper. One large volume, 4to, cloth, $5.00; sheep, $6.00
CHURCH AND STATE
By Philip Schaff
IN THE UNITED STATES.
OR THE AMERICAN IDEA OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND ITS
PRACTICAL EFFECTS, WITH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS,
BY PHILIP SCHAF, D. D.
This is a companion volume to “Religious Freedom,” and discusses that part of the Constitution which protects us against the despotism of a State Church, and guarantees to us the free exercise and enjoyment of religion, as an inherent, inviolable, and inalienable right of every man. A most excellent treatise. Price, $1.50.
THE PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,
By Philip Schaff, D. D.
AS SHOWN IN THE HISTORY OF TOLERATION ACTS,
BY PHILIP SCHAFF, D. D.
This most excellent treatise traces the progress of Christianity in its relation to the State from persecution to toleration, and from toleration to freedom. It is a companion to the treatise on “CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES,” and properly precedes it, and ends where the other begins. Both together form a brief history of
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN EUROPE AND AMERICA.
This history can best be written from an American standpoint, because America reaps the benefit of all the preceding toleration acts, and has successfully tested, by the experience of a century, the system of religious freedom on the basis of legal equality and a peaceful separation of Church and State. Price, $1.50.
OUR COUNTRY, ITS POSSIBLE FUTURE, AND PRESENT CRISIS—
By Rev. Josiah Strong
By Rev. Josiah Strong. 228 pages, cloth, 60 cents.
CRUDEN'S CONCORDANCE—A dictionary, and alphabetical index to the Bible. Cloth, $1.25. Sheep, $2.50.
The above named books will be sent post-paid on receipt of price.
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO.
Or Oakland, Cal. 43 Bond St., New York City.
AT first thought it seems strange that people reared in a land of comparative freedom should have no just appreciation of individual liberty; and yet such is certainly the case. The principle is illustrated by the fact, that generally speaking, only those who labor properly appreciate the fruits of toil. The fortune carefully hoarded by the father, by whose industry and self-denial it was accumulated, is frequently squandered by the son, reared in ease and luxury. It is indeed true, as Wendell Phillips has said, “The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten.”
THE utter lack of any proper sense of the meaning or value of the sacred rights of the individual, is well illustrated by a recent article in the Boston Traveler, by one Charles Eaton, of Memphis, Tennessee. In the outset of his article Mr. Eaton says:—
The supreme law of the land (Article 6, paragraph 2, United States Constitution) is that made by the people, whether in their Federal or State organizations; or, the supreme law may be that which is expressed by the people through the press, the platform, and the pulpit—called public sentiment. This fact is stated in a variety of forms in the several State Constitutions. In Pennsylvania’s Constitution of 1838 this language is used: “That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, we declare: . . . That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness.”
THIS paragraph contains a great truth, and a fatal error. The truth is that “the Constitution is the supreme law of the land;” the fallacy, that the will of the people, aside from the Constitution, is supreme; or that it ought to be supreme. That which should be supreme in civil government, and that which political Constitutions should guarantee, is inalienable human rights. But that Mr. Eaton does not at all appreciate these facts is evident from these propositions which he lays down in the course of his article:—
The people, the State, are sovereign in all things whatsoever, as between man and man.
The people and the people alone decide where my rights end and yours begin.
BUT the people have of right no such powers as those claimed for them by Mr. Eaton. Nothing whatever can justify the majority in meddling with the inalienable rights of the individual. John Stuart Mill never wrote a truer thing than when he said that such—
power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it.
The idea that whatever the majority decrees is right is no more true now than it was when the majority demanded the crucifixion of Christ, or when the majority demanded the hanging of witches in Massachusetts, or when, as in our own day, the commune of a Russian village decrees the exiling of innocent men and women to Siberia. It is possible for majority rule to be just as tyrannical and just as wicked as the rule of a single man.
THE Declaration of Independence sets forth this: “That all men are created equal, that they are by their Creator endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men.” The difference between this declaration and the propositions laid down by Mr. Eaton, is as great as the difference between night and day.
GOVERNMENTS are not instituted to define rights, “to decide where my rights end and yours begin.” My rights begin where yours begin, and end only where yours end; and no majority, however large, can of right make it otherwise. Governments are instituted, not to create, but to defend rights; to guarantee to the individual the untrammeled exercise of his rights; and when “public sentiment” forbids this, the will of the people becomes as tyrannical as the will of a single man. And it is for this very reason that Constitutions are made—to restrict or hold in check the majority from trampling upon the rights of the minority, no less than to protect the majority against the usurpations of the few, or of one.
CONSTITUTIONS are usually the fruit of agitation, and are framed by men jealous for their rights. They are designed to be the conservators of the inalienable rights of the individual citizen; the citadel of defense alike against the usurpations of one, of the few, or of the many. Constitutions are supposed to be, and should be stable; the will of the majority is fickle, and liable to sudden and unreasonable changes; hence, Constitutions are just as essential in popular governments like our own as in any other.
AND not only are Constitutions necessary, but the people must be constantly reminded of their rights as individuals. As Wendell Phillips has so aptly said: “Some men suppose that in order to the people’s governing themselves, it is only necessary that the rights of men be printed, and that every citizen have a copy; as the Epicureans two thousand years ago imagined God a being who arranged this marvelous machinery, set it going, and then sunk to sleep. Republics exist only by being constantly agitated. . . . Never to our latest posterity, can we do without prophets . . . to trouble the waters, that there may be health in their flow.” Mr. Eaton’s article proves the truth of these words, for it demonstrates the present need of such prophets.
THE Catholic Review says: “There is but one United States, and that means there is but one spot on the face of the earth where a man can hold up his head and say, ‘I am allowed to practice the religion I think is the right one.’ Let us pray that this grand religious liberty will last forever.” And that would in effect be to pray that Romanism may never become dominant here.
A CORRESPONDENT of the Examiner, writing from Jackson, Mississippi, says:
Our State Legislature is now in session at the capital, and is said to be an unusually fine body of men, many of them Christians and in favor of reform measures. The Baptists have a liberal representation in the body.
How a denomination comes to have representatives in a State Legislature is not easy to see. Even in Mississippi the members of the Legislature are supposed to be chosen to represent the citizens of the districts in which they severally reside. Possibly some prove recreant to their trust and represent not the people but certain religious organizations among the people. Baptists most of all should blush to confess that this is true of members of that communion. But if “many” of the members of the Legislature of Mississippi are in favor of reform, they should at once sweep from the statute book of that State the religious laws which at present disfigure it. Christian men and reformers ought to be just. However, if the statement is correct that they represent not their districts, but their churches, nothing in the line of real reform can be expected of them.
