GOD is the great moral Governor; to him every soul is responsible; to him every
Page 1
The American Sentinel
March 10, 1892
Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · March 10, 1892
GOD is the great moral Governor; to him every soul is responsible; to him every free moral agent must give account. To permit any power whatever to come between the individual and God, would destroy this individual responsibility to God. If it were the province of the State to enforce the law of God, the individual would naturally seek to know, not the will of God, but the will of the State. And the effect would be to put the State in the place of God, just as the Papacy puts the Pope in the place of God, "so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." But God has no vicegerent upon earth.
More Judicial Legislation in Tennessee.
By W. H. M.
The question of the competency of witnesses is a vital matter in the trial of any case or in the discussion of any subject wherein parties differ. If by any means a witness, whose testimony is necessary to establish a certain line of evidence, can be excluded from giving that testimony, as incompetent to be heard in the witness chair, then from lack of proof of essential facts an unjust cause may be won and a good cause may be lost.
Upon the subject of competency of witnesses the code of Tennessee, 1884, says:—
4560. Every person of sufficient capacity to understand the obligation of an oath, is competent to be a witness.
The succeeding sections of the Article specify certain exceptions wherein persons are or may be held incompetent to testify,—when guilty of certain heinous crimes, and when incapacitated by reason of special family or legal relations to the parties to the suit. But it is not once hinted that religious belief or unbelief enters into the question of competency in any degree. It would therefore naturally be supposed that it would be entirely unnecessary to go any farther in this investigation, so far as the jurisprudence and judicial decisions of the State of Tennessee are concerned,—particularly as the Constitution of the State expressly lays down the broad principle, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for holding office in the State, nor as a qualification for jury service. It would, therefore, be most natural to suppose the same principle must continue of force throughout; and in a court where neither the judge who sits on the bench nor the jury upon whose verdict the life, liberty, or property of the party at bar may depend,—if they can not be required to be of any specified religious creed, or to have any religious belief at all,—then, certainly, it would not be expected that any such discrimination would hold in the case of witnesses who appear before such a court. It would seem that the incongruity of such a distinction would make this impossible, and the evident deduction from such a situation,—that the professedly Christian or atheist prisoner would, in asserting his privilege to be tried by his peers, have the right to call for a Christian or atheist judge and jury by whom his case might be tried without prejudice,—would cause the ludicrousness of subjecting the witness to a religious test, which the Constitution prohibited applying to judge and jury, to appear so clearly that the possibility of its application to a witness would not be thought of.
But the compilers of the code have attached a foot-note to section 4560, in which certain references are given thus:—
Before acquitting the State of Tennessee on this count it might be well to consult these cases. The first (2 Tenn. 96) is that of State vs. Cooper, tried in the Superior Court of last resort, at Knoxville, in September 1807. This case must speak for itself. After what has been seen of the spirit of the Constitution of the State on such a question as this and the broad statement of the code that, every person capable of comprehending the obligation of an oath is competent to act as a witness, no other testimony could be believed, which should say as does the caption of this case, “No person can be a witness who does not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments.” The case is reported thus:—
In this case, a witness, Captain Buller, was produced as to the credibility of Samuel Finley, and asked if he had not heard Finley say that he did not believe that there was either God or devil, that the Old and New Testament was no more than any other history. The Attorney-General argued that by the laws of England every rational creature, whatever his belief might be, could be a witness. There was no instance in any of the law books that any man’s religious opinions ever were excepted to. No question can occur as to these things, with respect to a citizen.—It is true, as to savages it may.
Campbell J. thought that no man who did not believe in a future state of existence, rewards, and punishments, could be a witness. The question is proper.
Overton J. considered this question of importance and therefore took a view of the English authorities. Prima facie, every person of a country where a belief in a future state of rewards and punishments commonly exist, let his religion be what it may, is competent. With respect to such persons no slight or casual sayings can be given in evidence for the purpose of rendering them incompetent. Evidence of a settled belief should be produced. The same question may be asked in this case, as in others which relate to reputation, viz., what is his general reputation, not particular questions, unless the ground is first laid in the general reputation of the person offered, and then particular questions as to the creed of the witness.
Thus Judge Campbell, in this case, unhesitatingly excludes from the witness stand every person who does not “believe in a future state of existence, rewards, and punishments.” And Judge Overton concurs with him, only marking out the course of examination by which it is necessary to ascertain whether or no the creed of the witness is such as will render him competent to testify. And this, although counsel had shown, and it had not been denied, that there was no authority for such a holding. But this case was tried in 1807, and perhaps it is referred to merely as ancient history. The next citation, possibly, will be in consonance with the language and spirit of the section of the code under consideration. It is the case of Bennett vs. the State, 1 Swan 411, heard at the April term of the Supreme Court at Jackson, Tennessee, 1852. A portion of this case reads thus:—
An objection was made to the competency of the prosecutor, John Edgar, to testify as a witness. It appears that he was sworn on the voir dire, and on being interrogated by the defendant’s counsel, as to his religious belief stated, “that he did not believe in a state of future rewards and punishments after death; and that the only punishment inflicted for wrongs in this life, was the pangs of conscience; but he believed in the existence of a God, he also believed the Bible.” The court held him to be a competent witness; and in this there is no error. The statement of the witness as respects a future state of rewards and punishments is neither very intelligible nor consistent. As we understand it, however, he means not to disavow, but on the contrary, distinctly to affirm his belief in such a future state; but entertains an opinion different from many persons as to the nature of the punishment—an opinion in which he is by no means singular.
It seems that the view of the ancient judges is, notwithstanding the lapse of time, still that of Judge McKinney, in this case. He evidently considers it necessary that to be a competent witness a man must believe in a future state of rewards and punishments, although he would not necessarily hold that those beliefs must be either intelligible or consistent. A very fortunate holding perhaps, for if perfectly consistent and intelligible views were requisite even those holding the so-called orthodox ideas as to the future state might be excluded from testifying in court. Both of these decisions are contrary to the spirit of the Constitutions of the State in force at their rendering; the first to the Constitution of 1796, in which the bill of rights declares that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience and no religious test be required of any one upon whom is placed a public trust. The Constitution of 1834, reiterates these principles, and to this the case of Bennett vs. the State is in antagonism.
The next decision, that of Harrel vs. the State, 1 Head 125, was delivered by the same judge at the September term of the Supreme Court, at Knoxville, six years later, under the code of 1858, then just adopted. This code is similar in its provisions, as to the competency of witnesses in this regard, to that quoted at the beginning of the article. In this case Harrel was convicted of receiving stolen goods and sentenced to the penitentiary. The principal witness, upon whose testimony this conviction was secured, had affirmed his disbelief in the accepted views of religion. The action of the lower court on this point is thus narrated:—
For the purpose of excluding said witness on the ground of incompetency, from want of religious belief; it was proposed, on behalf of the defendant, to prove, that, within less than four months from the time of the trial, said Stephens “had solemnly declared that he did not believe the Bible was true; that he did not believe in the existence of a God; that he did not believe that man had a soul; that he was like the beasts; that his breath was his soul, when you stopped that his soul was destroyed, and that was the end of man.”
The Court would not admit this evidence although it held that the defendant might produce evidence as to the “general religious reputation” of Stephens or might question the witness himself as to his religious belief. This the defendant’s counsel would not do, and the case went on to a conviction under Stephens’ testimony. In his decision upon appeal Judge McKinney says:—
It is admitted that the sentiments imputed to Stephens, if really entertained, rendered him incompetent to testify as a witness; and the only question is as to the mode of proof. Upon this point a difference prevails in practice. Mr. Greenleaf states that the ordinary mode of showing this objection to the competency of a witness is, “by evidence of his declarations, previously made to others.” Vol. 1, sec. 270, and note 2. And according to some of the authorities referred to in the note, it is not admissible to enquire of the witness as to his religious belief. On the other hand Mr. Starkie lays it down (Vol. 1, p. 121) that, “before a witness takes the oath, he may be asked whether he believes in the existence of a God, in the obligation of an oath, and in a future state of rewards and punishments; and if he does not he can not be admitted to give evidence.” We have held recently, in a case not reported, that the party seeking to exclude a witness on this ground, may adopt either mode of proof; and we adhere to this determination as the better practice. If the witness really disregards the obligation of an oath, it would seem to be neither safe, nor consistent to resort to his examination. If he has voluntarily avowed his disbelief, we perceive no reason why this should not be proved in the same manner as any other fact. The question, whether his declarations in regard to his faith have been correctly understood, as represented; as also the question whether his opinion has undergone a change, will be open to proof of a like character. In this view, his honor erred in excluding the evidence offered. But in the instructions to the jury we think there is no error. Judgment reversed.
Thus, in establishing the incompetency of a material witness, an opportunity was made for a receiver of stolen goods to go free. The authorities referred to here, it will be noticed, are Greenleaf, and Starkie, on Evidence, nothing more.
The next case is that of Anderson vs. Maberry, heard in the Supreme Court by Judge Nicholson, in 1871. In the questions involved, in reference to the competency of the witness, the case is almost precisely similar to that just given, and the judge says, “This exact question arises in the case of Harrel vs. the State, 1 Head 125.” He then quotes from Judge McKinney’s decision in that case, and renders his own decision:—
Upon this authority, which we adopt as the best rule of practice, the Circuit Judge erred in not permitting plaintiff’s counsel to call witnesses to prove the declarations of Drury Smith, as to his disbelief in a God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments, and in requiring him to resort to the examination of the witness himself. The record shows the evidence of Drury Smith to have been material on the issue before the jury. For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.
Again a witness is excluded whose testimony is “material to the issue.” This case is decided under the same absence of code provisions as the previous cases, but under the Constitution of 1870, in which there was added to the bill of rights, in reference to jurors, “and no religious or political test shall ever be required as a qualification for jurors.” Thus the constitutional theory and the judicial practice draw farther apart; the one retrogrades as the other advances.
One of the authorities upon which Judge McKinney bases his opinion is the “Law of Evidence,” by Thomas Starkie, Esq., of the Inner Temple, one of Her Majesty’s Counsel. This, then, is an English authority, and Her Majesty’s Counsel says:—
Before a witness takes the oath, he may be asked whether he believes in the existence of a God, in the obligation of an oath, and in a future state of rewards and punishments; and if he does he may be admitted to give evidence. And it seems that he ought to be admitted if he believes in the existence of a God who will reward or punish him in this world, although he does not believe in a future state. But it is not sufficient that he believes himself bound to speak the truth, merely for a regard to character, or the interests of society, or fear of punishment by the temporal law.
To this, Sharswood’s American edition has this note, “The weight of authority in the United States is very decidedly with the text on this point.” Again, on74page 30 of the same edition, this authority says that all “who do not believe in the existence of a Deity; or in a state where that Deity will punish perjury, can not be admitted as witnesses.” To this Mr. Sharswood appends this note, in reference to the “decisions of various courts in the United States. There is entire unanimity in holding that the witness must believe in the existence of a God who will punish falsehood.” Greenleaf deals with the question much more at length, but reiterates the same thoughts and repeats the same facts.
According to the unqualified testimony of all the Tennessee cases bearing upon this issue, the English Church and State precedent has been implicitly followed in the United States upon the question of the competency of witnesses, solely upon a religious basis, without the slightest thought having ever been given as to whether it was or was not in keeping with constitutional principles.
W. H. M.
GOD gives manhood but one clew to success—equal and exact justice; that he guarantees shall be always expediency. Deviate one hair’s breadth—plant only the tiniest seed of concession—you know not how “many branches of mischief” shall grow therefrom.—Wendell Phillips.
We must remember that if we would maintain our free institutions, we must protect the rights of minorities, and insure to them every privilege and immunity that is accorded the majority, and that every man’s rights must be protected whether he stands alone or with the Nation. We must remember, too, the tendency of mankind to enforce upon others their opinions and their customs.—W. A. Blakely.
THE morality as derived from religion which the State needs will be best supplied by the confinement of its agency to things temporal and the entire omission on its part of any attempt to administer things spiritual. The State can do religion no favor so great as to have nothing to do with it, and itself no favor so great as to let religion alone. The moment the two are put in alliance with each other both are injured.—Samuel T. Spear, D.D.
Is It the Sabbath?
By C. P. B.
(Concluded.)*
THE advocates of Sunday sacredness claim no positive command or instruction as their warrant for keeping the day, but seek to make it appear from certain texts in the New Testament that Sunday was by the apostles and their immediate successors regarded as the Sabbath. It is proper, therefore, that we examine briefly the several texts in the Bible that speak of Sunday, or rather the first day of the week, for Sunday is a name unknown to holy writ.
The first day of the week is mentioned in the Scriptures only eight times. In not one instance is it called the Sabbath or even a Sabbath; and twice is it plainly distinguished from the Sabbath. The first of these texts is Matt. 28:1: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” The other text which makes this clear distinction between the Sabbath and the first day of week is Luke 23:56; 24:1: “And they returned and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.”
The distinction made in these texts is very significant, especially in view of the fact that both Matthew and Luke, recorded, not their own words, but the words of the Spirit of God; and wrote some thirty-one to thirty-three years after the resurrection of Christ, at which time the change in the Sabbath is said to have been made. It is inconceivable that they should have used such language unless they were profoundly ignorant of any change, and still regarded the seventh day as the Sabbath. But such ignorance on their part is prima facie evidence that no such change had been made; at least not by divine authority.
The first day of the week mentioned by Matthew and Luke, is also mentioned by Mark and John (Mark 16:2, John 21:1, 19); but neither of them give any intimation of any change in the Sabbath, nor of any sacred character attached to Sunday. Sunday is with them simply, “the first day of the week,” while in both their narratives (though not in as close connection as in Matthew and Luke), another day is called “the Sabbath.”
The next mention of the first day of the week occurs in Acts 20:7, where we find an account of a night meeting held upon that day. The record runs thus:—
And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long time preaching, he sank down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive and were not a little comforted.
And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot. And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene.
It is assumed by many that this meeting was upon Sunday evening; but that such was the case is by no means clear. In the first place, in the Scriptures the day begins not at midnight, as with us, but in the evening, at the setting of the sun. In Lev. 23:32, we read, “From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath;” and from Mark 1:32 we learn that “even” was at the setting of the sun. In Neh. 13:19 we have this testimony on the subject: “And it came to pass that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the Sabbath day.” This agrees too with the expression, “And the evening and the morning were the first day,” etc., in the first chapter of Genesis. In religious festivals the Jews still reckon the day from sunset to sunset, as do also those Christians who observe the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It is evident, therefore, that this meeting was held on what we call Saturday night; that is upon the first or dark part of the first day of the week, Bible time. And it is certain that the disciples did not at that time regard that day as the Sabbath, for we read that after Paul had broken bread, he departed afoot for Assos, a distance of about sixteen miles; for which place the ship, having a greater distance to go, had sailed, as we learn from Acts 20:13, before the apostle started, probably soon after the close of the Sabbath, or about the time of the beginning of the meeting at which Paul remained to preach. But even if it were shown that this was what we now call a Sunday evening meeting, it is certain that the disciples did not regard the day as the Sabbath. Moreover, this is the only meeting in the Bible said to have occurred on the first day of the week. We have the record of many Sabbath meetings, but only one Sunday meeting.
The last statement is, however, supposed by some to contradict 1 Cor. 16:1, 2: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” The contention with regard to this verse is that it refers to collections taken at meetings on Sunday, as is now the almost universal custom in churches. On this subject Rev. J. W. Morton, formerly a Reformed Presbyterian missionary to Hayti, says:—
The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, “by him,” and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means “in the collection-box of the congregation.” Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, “by one's self, i. e., at home.” Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it, “apud se,” with one's self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, “chez soi,” at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, “bei sich selbst,” by himself, at home. The Dutch, “by hem selven,” same as the German. The Italian of Diodati, “appresso di se,” in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, “en su casa,” in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, “para isso,” with himself. The Swedish, “nar sig sjelf,” near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above.
In the light of these translations it is positive that this text has no reference whatever to meetings regularly held upon the first day of the week, but rather to a weekly accounting, or summing up of the gains of the previous week to see how much each one could lay aside for the relief of the poor brethren at Jerusalem.
In addition to these references to the first day of the week, there are two other texts supposed by some to refer to that day; they are John 20:26 and Rev. 1:10. It is necessary only to read the first of these texts to see that the incident recorded could not possibly have occurred on the first day of the week; for it was “after eight days,” counting from the day of the resurrection. “After eight days” is an indefinite expression meaning76not just a week, as some assume, but a period of more than eight days, as will appear from a comparison of Matt. 17:1, 2, with Luke 9:28, 29. In the first of these texts we read that “after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.” Luke says: “And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.” Now if “after six days” is “about eight days,” it is manifestly absurd to insist that “after eight days” is just a week, and that John 20:26 is an account of a religious meeting on the first day of the week at which our Lord was present. But to such straits are they driven who would find Bible sanction for the Sunday-Sabbath.
The remaining text supposed to refer to the first day of the week, and frequently appealed to to prove its sacred character, is Rev. 1:10: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.” This text does not say that John was in the Spirit on the first day of the week, or upon Sunday, but that he “was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.” To assume, therefore, that the Lord's day is Sunday, is to assume the very point in dispute. The text does show that the Lord has in this dispensation a day which he claims as his; a day sacred to his worship; but it does not tell us what day that is. Other scriptures must settle that question.
In a former article was quoted a portion of the fourth commandment (Ex. 20: 3–11), in which occur these words: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” According to the fourth commandment then, which is the Lord's day?—Not the first, but the seventh. But we have other evidence upon this point. In Isa. 58:13, 14, we have this testimony: “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Here the Lord expressly claims the Sabbath as his day.
But it is said that “Lord's day” means the Lord Jesus Christ's day. Be it so; the result is the same; for our Saviour declares (Mark 2:28) that he is Lord “of the Sabbath day,” so that whether we refer the expression “Lord's day” to the Father or to the Son, makes not the slightest difference; the Scriptures testify that the Sabbath, the seventh day, is the Lord's day.
As THE SENTINEL has so often said, the truth or falsity of the claims of the Sunday-Sabbath can not affect the right of the State to require its observance; the State has no such right in any event; but in view of the fact that it is without a shadow of divine authority, the bigotry that clamors for civil law to compel all men to keep it, stands out all the more clearly, and is shown to be positively without excuse. C. P. B.
Specious Reasoning.
By W. A. Colcord
THE Christian Statesman, of February 20, 1892, has the following argument to justify Sunday laws:—
A republic can not exist without morality, nor morality without religion, nor religion without the Sabbath, nor the Sabbath without law.
Allowing that the Sabbath is an important element in religion, it is not, however, all that is essential to true religion. Prayer is essential. Let us try the same logic with reference to this: A republic can not exist without morality, nor morality without religion, nor religion without prayer, nor prayer without law, therefore the Government must make a law requiring all to pray. This is as logical as the other, for those who call not upon God are as truly irreligious as those who do not keep his Sabbath. And this is the logic of National Reformers, who know of no other way to advance religion than by law. With them law is the last resort and final appeal in religious matters.
Such reasoning makes human law (for that is the sort of law that is meant), the ultimate source of religion. Religion can not exist without the Sabbath, nor the Sabbath without law; therefore, in order to have religion, the Government must legislate,—must pass a Sabbath law! That is to say that religion can not exist without the aid and support of the Government, or, in other words, without Church and State being united. But who does not know better? Who does not know that it has existed not only without the aid of law but in spite of it? Witness the rise and progress of Christianity during the first two centuries.
If the Statesman had said, a republic can not exist without morality, nor morality without religion, nor genuine religion without conversion and a change of heart, which can be affected by no human law, but by the preaching of the gospel and the influence of the Spirit of God only, it would have come nearer the truth. A purified heart is the only place where genuine religion can dwell. But the heart can be purified only by God, and that by faith. Acts 15:9. Repentance must precede conversion, but it is the goodness of God, not civil laws, that leads to repentance. Rom. 2:4. As well might we expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to expect the fruits of religion from those who are unconverted. It is only the good man out of the good treasure of his heart that brings forth good fruit. That religion which expects Sabbath-keeping, religion, and morality, which will be acceptable to God, to come from unregenerated hearts, is not the religion of Jesus Christ, but the doctrine of antichrist. All the religion that can ever come from laws enacted by civil governments can at best be only in form. This is the religion of the National Reform party, the American Sabbath Union, and all the other Sunday-law parties and Sunday Rest Leagues now in existence or that ever will be. Those holding it are well described by the Apostle Paul in 2 Tim. 3:5 as those “having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.” What can be a greater denial of the power of God to transform the heart, renew the life, and perpetuate religion, than to assert that religion is dependent for its existence upon the legislative enactments of puny men, and wicked men at that?
It is true that the true Sabbath has law for its foundation and maintenance; but it is the law of Him who made the Sabbath, and not of him for whom it was made. This Sabbath is no more dependent for its existence upon human laws than are the returning seasons.
Wherever men are found who know their Creator and honor him, there will be found those who keep, to the best of their enlightenment, the Sabbath of the Lord, in memory of whose works and in honor of whom it was instituted. The law referred to reads: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,” etc. Here is the all-sufficient Sabbath law. He who has this law for the foundation of his Sabbath observance needs no other. But the fact that this refers to another Sabbath than the one the Statesman and its allies are observing, is doubtless the reason they are seeking elsewhere for “law” to keep in existence the Sabbath of their choice. The Sabbath of the Lord needs no such support, and those who observe it ask for none; they will observe it without such law, and in spite of law.
W. A. COLCORD.
“THE law of love being the foundation of the government of God, the happiness of all intelligent beings depends upon their perfect accord with its great principles of righteousness. God desires from all his creatures the service of love,—service that springs from an appreciation of his character. He takes no pleasure in a forced obedience; and to all he grants freedom of will, that they may render him voluntary service.”
Sunday at the World's Fair.
PETITIONS are going up to Washington from all parts of the country asking Congress to vote no aid to the World's Fair at Chicago unless it is coupled with the restrictive proviso that it shall close up on Sundays. Tennesseans, whose State absolutely refused to contribute a solitary cent to this glorious exhibit of the world, gallantly join the army of petitioners. Church and State in this country—religion and politics—have never been permitted to clash by governmental interference. At this late day Congress can not afford to legislate upon conflicting religious matters, and this attempt to interfere with the municipal regulations of Chicago will fall to the ground, after the right of petition has been received with all due courtesy. The best and brightest works of the accumulated centuries of the world will be on exhibition at this Columbian Fair, and we can not find it in our heart to exclude those whose only chance will be on Sunday. Certainly, we all should remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy—but, by legislation, whose Sabbath? An interesting article in the current Century tells us that in New York City alone, there are two hundred and fifty thousand Jews, whose Sabbath begins on Friday. These American citizens own real estate there valued at $200,000,000, while they have invested in business $207,388,000 more, and this in New York alone. Just think of the others scattered over the United States! Yet, they are not asking that the exhibit be closed on their Sabbath, which they very devoutly believe is the Sabbath of the Bible. It will not do to sneer at these citizens as “foreigners,” for a large proportion of them are native and to the manner born.
Again, there is another religious sect in our country, coming up to the full standard of good citizenship, with all that this phrase implies. They own printing offices and are publishing papers, books, and magazines advocating their sincere conviction that Saturday is the orthodox Sabbath. Their churches and school-houses are beginning to dot free America, and are now heard from through an educated ministry and diplomated professors. These be native born American citizens, and yet you do not hear of the Seventh-day Adventists petitioning Congress to close the World's Fair against the world on their Sabbath. Indeed, this is a great, big world. Narrow gauge roads were all years ago widened into the standard broad gauge, and now, if a person expects to reach his destination in good shape and on time, he must travel on the broad gauge. It’s so in religion, politics, and business. Then, there are in this country legions of quite respectable people, representing largely the wealth, refinement, enterprise, and morality of their various localities, though they belong to no church and may doubt the chronology that fixes the Sabbath of the Bible on Sunday. Are they or their views entitled to no respect or consideration by these worthy petitioners? But, we speak more especially in behalf of that vast and meritorious body of bread-winners to whom Sunday is their only day of rest, devotion and recreation with wife and children. The arts and sciences—the concentrated beauty and glory of all civilized countries—will be to them as nothing if they are excluded on Sunday from this, the grandest and most magnificent exhibit of civilization ever dreamed of by man and carried to perfection by his genius and liberality. It is grand enough for the rich and well-to-do—those who can make any day of the week a season of rest, recreation, and devotion—to join those petitioners who would restrain their less fortunate countrymen from their God-given rights. But to the workingman, to whom the loss of a day represents from one to five dollars, it means utter exclusion for himself and family. In and around Chicago there are hundreds of thousands of respectable, intelligent, clerks and mechanics idle on Sunday. Many of these would, if they could, take their little ones and wives to visit the museums of art and natural history at the World's Fair—the agricultural and mechanical halls, botanical gardens, etc. But the portals of this great institution of education, enjoyment, and recreation, are sought to be barred on the only day when the workers could make use of the opportunities afforded. Plenty of side doors into questionable resorts will be open. But the wide halls in which the wonders of the floral and animal world are displayed—the spacious galleries that hold treasures of art that would linger as a dream of delight in the thoughts of the tired woman whose monotonous life is passed within the narrow limits of the brick walls of a cheap tenement—are now urged to be closed. Public opinion should not allow a privileged class to grow up to curtail the scant privileges of the intelligent, respectable poor. God bless the triune Sabbath of the poor man!—rest, devotion, and recreation. The civil Sabbath of free America has nothing to gain by pushing it to the extreme of personal oppression. —State Gazette, Dyersburg, Tennessee.