By Willard Allen Colcord, Author of "The Rights of Man"
Questioner.—Do you believe that civil government is ordained of God?
Answer.—Yes; the genius of order and government is of God. Without government there could not be order, and the want or absence of order means confusion; and the Bible plainly says that “God is not the author of confusion.” God must therefore be the author of government. “Order,” Milton has said, “is heaven’s first law;” and Pope, completing the thought, as he did the couplet, added:
“This confessed,
Some are and must be greater than the rest.”
Questioner.—Is it proper for Christians, then, to resist civil government?
Answer.—Certainly not. Paul plainly says: “The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Rom. 13: 1, 2.
Questioner.—Does the Bible indicate the object for which civil government was ordained?
Answer.—Yes. It says: “For rulers are NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is GOOD, and thou shalt have PRAISE of the same: for HE IS THE MINISTER OF GOD TO THEE FOR GOOD. But if thou do that which is EVIL, be AFRAID; FOR HE BEARETH NOT THE SWORD IN VAIN: for HE IS THE MINISTER OF GOD, A REVENGER TO EXECUTE WRATH UPON HIM THAT DOETH EVIL.” Rom. 13: 3, 4.
In harmony with Paul’s words just quoted, Peter likewise says: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF EVIL-DOERS, AND FOR THE PRAISE OF THEM THAT DO WELL.” 1 Peter 2: 13, 14.
These scriptures show, in a general way, the object for which civil government was ordained. It was “for the punishment of evildoers,” and “the praise of them that do well.” Civil government was designed to be a deterrent to crime, and an encouragement to well-doing.
Questioner.—Upon what ground, then, can you object to civil government favoring and supporting religion? Is not religion a good thing?
Answer.—Religion is not within the purview of civil government. Religion has to do with one’s duty and relations to God. Religion is an individual matter, a thing of the heart. It involves the exercise of faith and love, and neither of these can be produced or properly directed or controlled by human laws, or by any government formed, administered, or presided over by man. Religion is good if it is good religion. And civil government is good when properly administered within its legitimate realm,—the civil,—and for the purpose for which it was ordained,—control in civil things; but God never intended that civil government should usurp His place within “the realm of conscience,—the citadel of the soul.” “God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” John 4: 24. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Rom. 10: 17; 14: 23.
Speaking of the respective provinces of Church and State, and their duties, Macaulay, in his essay on “Gladstone on Church and State,” says:
“Now here are two great objects: one is the protection of the persons and estates of citizens from injury; the other is the propagation of religious truth. No two objects more entirely distinct can well be imagined. The former belongs wholly to the visible and tangible world in which we live: the latter belongs to that higher world which is beyond the reach of our senses. The former belongs to this life; the latter to that which is to come. Men who are perfectly agreed as to the importance of the former object, and as to the way of obtaining it, differ as widely as possible respecting the latter object. We must therefore pause before we admit that the persons, be they who they may, who are entrusted with the power for the promotion of the former object, ought always to use that power for the promotion of the latter object.”
Questioner.—Does not Christ teach that the concerns of religion are of more importance than are temporal affairs?
Answer.—Yes; He tells us not to be overanxious about our temporal needs, but to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Matt. 6: 25-33.
Questioner.—This being so, should not the fostering of religion and the promotion of religious truth be one of the principal ends of civil government?
Answer.—Such a conclusion by no means follows. In this same essay on Gladstone, Mr. Macaulay points out the fallacy of such a view in the following lucid observation. He says:
“We are desirous, before we enter on the discussion of this important question, to point out clearly a distinction which, tho very obvious, seems to be overlooked by many excellent people. In their opinion, to say that the ends of government are temporal and not spiritual is tantamount to saying that the temporal welfare of man is of more importance than his spiritual welfare. But this is an entire mistake. The question is not whether spiritual interests be or be not superior in importance to temporal interests; but whether the machinery which happens at any moment to be employed for the purpose of protecting certain temporal interests of a society be necessarily such a machinery as is fitted to promote the spiritual interests of that society. Without a division of labor the world would not go on. It is of very much more importance that men should have food rather than that they should have pianofortes. Yet it by no means follows that every pianoforte maker ought to add the business of a baker to his own; for, if he did so, we should have much worse music and much worse bread. It is of much more importance that a knowledge of religious truth should be wisely diffused than that the art of sculpture should flourish among us. Yet it by no means follows that the Royal Academy ought to unite with its present functions those of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, to distribute theological tracts, to send forth missionaries, to turn out Nollekens for being a Catholic, Bacon for being a Methodist, and Flaxman for being a Swedenborgian. For the effect of such folly would be that we should have the worst possible Academy of Arts, and the worst possible Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. The community, it is plain, would be thrown into universal confusion, if it were supposed to be the duty of every association which is formed for one good object to promote every other good object.”
Questioner.—Do you find in Scripture any warrant for this distinction?
Answer.—Yes; an abundance of it. Nebuchadnezzar, a civil ruler, sought to direct and control his subjects in matters of religion. For refusing to obey his decree respecting worship, he cast the three Hebrews into the fiery furnace. But God miraculously preserved and delivered them, and thus “changed the king’s word,” as Nebuchadnezzar himself was forced to admit. In doing this, God was giving an object-lesson to all the world, from the greatest nation then in existence in the world, one great purpose of which was to teach that civil government is not ordained to direct or control men in matters of religion, but that each individual is responsible to God alone in matters of faith and worship, and should be left free to worship or not to worship, according to the dictates of conscience.
The story of Daniel in the lions’ den teaches the same great truth. This likewise was enacted in a most public manner under the greatest then ruling nation in the world, the Medo-Persian.
Questioner.—In case of conflict between an individual’s views regarding a question of worship, and the requirements of a law of the State, should not the former give way to the latter?
Answer.—The cases just cited teach quite the reverse. They show that God respects the conscientiousness and courage of an individual, and of an individual standing alone, in refusing to comply with the requirements of the strongest civil government on earth when it attempts to direct or control that individual in religious matters. And the statement made by the apostles when arrested by the Jewish Sanhedrin, and forbidden to preach Christ to the people, places this matter beyond all doubt. Narrating their decision and attitude, the record says: “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN.” Acts 5: 29. They took the position that in any case of conflict between the laws of men and the law and Word of God, we are to obey the latter regardless of consequences.
From all this it is evident that there is a limit to the proper and legitimate sphere of civil government. Its province is confined to the civil, to temporal and terrestrial matters entirely. It has no right whatever, therefore, to assume the place and position of God to mankind in matters of conscience, faith, worship, and religious conduct. The only semblance to the right of civil government to enter this realm, is when an individual, or a collection of individuals, under the cover of religion, commit crimes or invade the equal rights of others. But in this case it is only a semblance, for in doing so it is only exercising its proper functions within its own realm, and protecting men in their natural and inalienable rights.
W. A. COLCORD.
Maintain the Right
By John Greenleaf Whittier
Now, when our land to ruin's brink is verging,
In God's name, let us speak while there is time!
Now, when the padlocks for our lips are forging,
Silence is crime!
What! shall we henceforth humbly ask as favors
Rights all our own? In madness shall we barter,
For treacherous peace, the freedom Nature gave us,
God and our charter?
Here shall the statesman forge his human fetters,
Here the false jurist human rights deny,
And, in the church, their proud and skilled abettors
Make truth a lie?
Torture the pages of the hallowed Bible,
To sanction crime, and robbery, and blood?
And, in Oppression's hateful service, libel
Both man and God?
Sons of the best of fathers! will ye falter
With all they left you periled and at stake?
Ho! once again on Freedom's holy altar
The fire awake!
Prayer-strengthened for the trial, come together,
Put on the harness for the moral fight,
And, with the blessing of your heavenly Father,
MAINTAIN THE RIGHT!
—J. G. Whittier.
California and Religious Liberty
By John Orr Corliss
[Mr. Corliss has been engaged in religious liberty work for many years in three continents, Europe, Australia, and America. He has appeared repeatedly before committees in Congress and in State legislatures. For several years past he has led the religious liberty forces in California. He has in every way studied the question from every side.]
V—The Use of the Initiative and Referendum
THERE can be no doubt in thoughtful minds that the real reason why the representatives of the people at California's capitol have refused to enact Sunday rest laws, has been because their long connection with public affairs, and their consequent knowledge of human tendencies, made them fearful of social ruptures which would result in sectarian hatred and vicious retaliations. They evidently studied the problem from all its sides, and concluded that the safest guide to social harmony was to put in statute law no cause of religious contention in the path of neighborhoods now in comparative peace and good-fellowship.
Notwithstanding the obvious wisdom of such a course, a few extremely biased and illiberal persons have been determined to secure such a change in the present state of religious affairs, as to have their own system of faith become recognized by law, and therefore have gone from point to point stirring up the people, not so much to be better Christians themselves, but to work in behalf of a civil law that will compel others, with themselves, to the observance of Sunday as a day of rest.
The efforts of these few have been greatly increased since the adoption of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, which gives enfranchised citizens the privilege of voting upon any measure desired by a certain per cent of the people, and thus enacting it into law independent of the State legislature. The strong pull now is to stir the people to the exercise of their privilege, and thus secure the required number of signatures, by which to have placed on the ballot, to be used at the next general election, a bill to make Sunday a legal day of rest for all, whether they will or not.
Political Methods in Religion
A bare majority of votes at the next election will secure this; and its advocates, having entered politics, will be forced to use questionable political methods to win. This must be evident to all who have watched political contests, and noted the derogatory things said and done by various and opposing parties. Under such circumstances calm deliberation is thrown to the winds, and passion is made to rule action.
Especially is this the case in religious controversy. Men can be calm under attack for their political principles, and even for their views of social problems; but if necessary they will go to greater lengths in the defense of their religious faith, than for any other known cause. Many men have given up their earthly possessions, and sacrificed family relations, in order to maintain a consistent bearing toward this treasure of their life.
Not for Religious Questions
This is why the Initiative privilege—the proper thing when legitimately used—may become the rock of irretrievable social shipwreck throughout the State. Could the Initiative be employed only in behalf of civil affairs, it would prove a boon to government, because it relates the people more closely than otherwise to all public questions. But affairs of religion are private matters, which each individual must answer for personally at the bar of God. With such the public have, by right, nothing to do, because no one has been divinely appointed to vote upon another his religious responsibilities. This is the business of the Holy Spirit alone, which is sent from heaven for that very purpose, and He performs His work, not by public acclamation, but by a quiet, subtile influence upon the individual heart.
It goes without saying that when one shall undertake to vote, at some polling-booth, that some one else shall by law be obliged to observe some religious form, because it may seem the right thing for himself to do, he by that act, assumes the work expressly committed to the Holy Spirit. John 16:13. It is more than that; it is a system by which one passes judgment upon another's attitude toward what he thinks would be pleasing to Christ.
Such a course is of itself unchristian, because Christ would in no case do that thing. He came to lead men to a higher plane of life, but said, "If any man hear My words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47. If one would labor in behalf of his fellow men's heavenly uplift instead of tutoring them to vote for laws that will gender strife and hatred in society, he would then be following clearly in the path of our common Master.
Church Attendance
It may be said, and indeed may be entirely true, that the clergy do not gain access to the common people, in a way to help them, since the people do not usually attend church on Sunday. But this evidently is not because of an absent Sunday rest law, forbidding them to work or to attend places of amusement. If visited at their own firesides, and conversed with there, the most of these very men would reveal that they are longing after and earnestly searching for spiritual truth. They will say that they are yearning for a higher and nobler conception of the Deity than is revealed in the average pulpit sermons of the day.
It is this that keeps them from the usual Sunday service, and draws them toward new religious movements like "New Thought," "Christian Science," Socialism, and the like. To such gatherings one goes frequently, where he feels that opportunity is afforded for the development of his individuality. The natural result is that while church pews are comparatively empty, the places of these other meetings are at times filled to overflowing.
It is absolute folly to work for a Sunday rest law in hope of enlarged congregations. There must be something besides enforced rest to make men better. If those charged with the welfare of humanity would seek out the people personally, and show them that some one cares for their souls, instead of needing an enforced day of rest, they would have constant longing for each rest day to roll around, that they might avail themselves of its benefits.
The Weapon of Prejudice
But instead of this, some so strongly urge a legal rest day as to severely denounce all who do not affiliate with their endeavors. They even sit in judgment upon the motives of those who conscientiously observe the Bible Sabbath—the seventh day of the week—and class them with the riffraff of society. This is done to prejudice honest souls against innocent worshipers, and so secure votes for a Sunday rest law, in opposition to the teachings of those who observe the seventh day.
Having done this, they next argue that the proposed Sunday legislation will not affect seventh-day keepers, and those who must do certain kinds of work on Sunday, as an exemption clause in the proposed law will excuse them from the penalty provided for wilful transgressors. This is made to appear so plausible that it is hoped to win votes by the representation made. But in all such political moves, the people will need to be wary, and before assenting to them, consider first of all, how well everything has gone along under the present system.
An Opening Wedge
Free citizens should consider well that the measure proposed is but an entering wedge to more stringent legislation at an early date. One of these advocates of the legal rest day spoke three times on the subject in Santa Rosa January 7. In his appeal for votes to secure the demanded legal rest day, the speaker, in his effort to allay possible prejudice against his scheme, was reported to have said that the proposed weekly rest law was "not a movement of the 'blue' type, or a puritanical Sabbath observance law," because he "realizes that California is not ready for such legislation as that."
Suppose, however, that by dint of perseverance a sentiment should be worked up that would favor the "puritanical" type of Sunday rest, what then? Would not another and stronger call be issued for a vote to secure that? But what is the nature of a puritanical type of rest day? Every one knows where its history has placed it,—among the most rigid of religious requirements. Yet the Santa Rosa speaker declared, if correctly reported, that the reason why such a type of rest day was not now asked for, was because of his realization that the people are not yet ready for it.
A Religious Law
He was also reported as saying that "our proposed bill will protect the Seventh-day Adventists to their right to rest on Saturday, and work Sunday." But upon what ground does their admitted right to work on Sunday stand? If it is a natural right, then why are not all others entitled to the same right? But this proponent of a legal Sunday rest says that the right of certain church-members to work on Sunday grows out of and depends on their conscientious rest on Saturday, the Biblical rest day. Such exemption, then, would not only be class legislation, which is expressly forbidden by the California State Constitution, but it would also be religious legislation as well, because it rests on religious reasons for support.
It is very evident that this overture is made, not for love to the class proposed to be thus exempted, but is held out as a pacifying morsel to those who have tender feelings toward seventh-day keepers, while not affiliated with them in church fellowship. In other words, it is thought that by the
America and Religious Liberty
By Charles Miles Snow
V—Swinging into Line in the March toward Oppression
By Charles Miles Snow, Author of "Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America"
Freedom of Choice
HE principle of religious liberty, or soul freedom, was enunciated by our Lord Jesus Christ in these words: "If any man hear My words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47. In that declaration the Author and Finisher of our faith recognized the right of choice in every human being, and that even in the matter of religion. Says Inspiration again: "Choose you this day whom ye will serve." Joshua 24:15.
It was necessary that in religion men should be free if that other declaration of the Scripture were to be fulfilled, "Affliction shall not rise up the second time." Nahum 1:9. In the clean universe of God, among the redeemed children of God, there will be no occasion for dissatisfaction. They who are there will be there by choice, and not by compulsion. The worship and love which they render to the Father and to the Son will be a service of glad free-will. In order to make that possible, the service which God instituted on earth was to be based upon the same principle. Compulsory worship is mockery in the sight of Heaven, and springs out of a heart of hatred and rebellion. The seeds of that evil tree will be destroyed in the fires with which God will renovate His universe when the tragedy of sin is finished.
But as previously pointed out, ever since Cain slew his brother, some men have been seeking to make other men offenders because of their religious preferences. This is antagonistic to the principles of the true Gospel, and if permitted to be carried into the new earth, would bring in another reign of sin, sorrow, misery, and death.
The principle of soul freedom has grown nowhere in this world without a terrible handicap of oppression, persecution, and martyrdom. Freedom in religious things is a principle so opposed to the kingdom of darkness, that, so long as that kingdom exists, the warfare must continue. Religious liberty was established in America only after most strenuous opposition on the part of the established order. It finally found a place in the Constitution of the Federal Government in spite of the fact that every State of the original thirteen save one, adopted constitutions that were opposed to it in principle. Therefore, in view of the fact that nearly all the original States of this nation are, at the present time, committed to the opposite principle through their own constitutions or legislative enactments, it should not surprise us if history should repeat itself in this country, and religious oppression be again the order of the day.
The National Reform Association
I have spoken in a general way, in previous articles, of the principles of oppression for which the National Reform Association stands. I shall speak more specifically in this article, quoting its own authoritative declarations, and shall also show upon what other organizations it is depending for the accomplishment of its purpose in turning the nation backward and outlawing the consciences of the people.
Some of the advocates of National Reform principles see the logical results of those principles and frankly admit them. Said Prof. C. A. Blanchard, of the National Reform Association:
"Constitutional laws punish for false money, weights, and measures. So Congress must establish a standard of religion, or admit anything called religion."
To set up a standard of religion for the nation, is to establish a national religion; but according to the basic principles of the American Government, Congress has nothing to do with religion. The Government has forbidden Congress to set up any standard of religion. That association thus stands opposed to both the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Said Dr. Jonathan Edwards at a convention held in New York City in 1873:
"We want State and religion, and we are going to have it. It shall be that so far as the affairs of State require religion—the religion of Jesus Christ. . . . We use the word 'religion' in its proper sense, as meaning a man's personal relation of faith and obedience to God."
From this it is clear that the purpose of that association is to have the nation regulate a "man's personal relation of faith and obedience to God." But that is the fundamental principle of the Papacy of medieval time, and this would be a reproduction of that. Dr. Edwards declared all opposers of this program to be in the same class with atheists, and then stated how the association stood with reference to that kind of atheism. He said:
"Atheism and Christianity are contradictory terms. They are incompatible systems. They can not dwell together on the same continent."
These were the principles which actuated the colonial governments of America when they expelled from their midst, or hanged, or whipped all who opposed their intolerant attitude toward all religions or creeds which differed from their own.
One of the vice-presidents of the National Reform Association, in a speech delivered at York, Nebraska, and published in the Christian Statesman of May 21, 1885, said:
"We might add in all justice that if the opponents of the Bible [that is, the opponents of their ideas in reference to religious things] do not like our Government and its Christian features, let them go to some wild, desolate land, and in the name of the devil, and for the sake of the devil, subdue it, and set up a government of their own on infidel and atheistic ideas; and then if they can stand it, stay there till they die."
This remarkable utterance had as its general theme such a reformation of this Government as would change it into a practical theocracy, making the law of God the alleged basis of its legislation, and regulating the religious affairs of men by civil enactment. Those who oppose this program are denominated "opponents of the Bible," and recommended to exile.
A Theocracy Demanded
We are not left to depend upon inference in reaching the conclusion that the National Reform Association is seeking to establish a theocracy in place of the republic. Said the Rev. J. M. Wylie, one of the vice-presidents of the association, in an address at Winona Lake, Indiana:
"The people are not afraid of a theocracy. The fact that civil government controls the education of our children and even the lives of the citizens, demands that it be placed under divine law and that God's spokesmen shall utter His will. The prophets understood better than the kings the fundamental law of the land, and kings were compelled to consult them."
Said the Rev. J. S. Martin, general superintendent of the association, in an address at the same place:
"The association proposes that there shall be a recognition made in our nation's fundamental law that the law of God, as revealed through Jesus Christ, AND NOT THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, is the supreme law of the land."
That would at once put the nation under ecclesiastical control; for "the preachers are the successors of the prophets," the expounders of the divine will, the authorized "spokesmen" of God. Under such a régime no law could be formulated without their authorization, or enacted without their approval. That would mean the overthrow of representative government, and the establishment of an ecclesiastical hierarchy to rule over the people. They had that during the Dark Ages and during the colonial days of America, and it created not a paradise but a purgatory.
The president of the association, Dr. Scovell, declared, in an address at Winona Lake, Indiana, in 1910:
"Uniformity [in religion] is essential both to peace and progress. The opinion of the majority must be decisive. Even in the matter of men's consciences a degree of uniformity is necessary. We would allow the greatest amount of individual rights of conscience CONSISTENT with the necessary uniformity."
In this program, uniformity in religion is more necessary than individual rights of conscience. That would put human law, or human statutory interpretation of divine law, everywhere above divine obligation, as the individual soul sees that obligation. Against such arguments as that John Knox protested with a price upon his head.
The Rev. M. A. Gault, a National Reformer, proposes the following remarkable remedy for diversities of belief and practise:
"Our remedy for all these malefic influences is to have the Government simply set up the moral law, and recognize God's authority behind it, and lay its hand upon any religion that does not conform to it."
That was all they did in colonial days; and the field secretary of the National Reform Association, the Rev. J. S. McGaw, declared at the Philadelphia World's Christian Citizenship Convention that the remedy for the nation's drifting away from God was "a nation-wide revival of our national religion," and "a Christian amendment to our national Constitution which will embody our forefathers' political creed, and thus set the nation right with God."8
This removes all doubt that the National Reform Association stands for the theocratic principle in government; for uniformity in religious belief under the force of law to compel it; for the re-enactment of the policies and performances of colonial days; and for the consequences of compulsion in matters of conscience, which is persecution.
Combining for Sunday Laws
One of the very first movements for aiming the forces of oppression and leading them in a united attack upon the vital principles of the American Government is the movement for a compulsory sabbath, a sabbath enforced upon all the people by the strong arm of the State, wielded under the dictation of the united forces of religion.
Concerning this endeavor the Rev. S. V. Leach, in an address at Denver, Colorado, which was reported in the Homiletic Review for November, 1892, said:
"Give us good Sunday laws well enforced by men in local authority, and our churches will be full of worshipers, and our young men and women will be attracted to the divine service. A mighty combination of the churches of the United States could win from Congress, the State legislatures, and municipal councils all legislation essential to this splendid result."
That is the power which they propose to wield to bring men and women to Christ. But our Lord repudiates such a program in these words: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself." Thus the failure rightly to represent and present Christ is made an excuse for Sunday laws to bring men to Him by a method which He neither instituted nor approved.
That "mighty combination" of religious forces of which Dr. Leach speaks, and against which the Congress of the United States warned the people in 1829 and 1830, is now in full process of formation, and is beginning to wield its influence. In 1864 there was one obscure organization advocating those un-American principles. In 1888 there were three more,—the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, the third party Prohibition Party, and the American Sabbath Union, and each of these three was then capable of wielding a greater influence than the parent organization. There has recently been organized in this country a branch of the great organization now operating in England and Canada, known as the Lord's Day Alliance, which stands committed to many of the principles of the National Reform Association. This great organization is now doing all in its power to bring about legislation in all the States in behalf of a compulsory sabbath. Through this organization, identical legislation is to be introduced into all the State legislatures. That work has actually been entered upon.
In addition to this, we have the International Federation of Sunday Rest-Day Associations, whose purpose is to oversee them all and assist in carrying out the purposes of them all; also the International Reform Bureau, which makes the securing of Sunday legislation one of the cardinal features of its operation.
The great organizations of the Christian young people of the United States have also adopted the shibboleth of Sunday enforcement, and in their annual conventions are committing themselves by resolution to that principle. Said the Christian Endeavorers in their last convention, which was held at Atlantic City:
"We urge also upon civic authorities the enforcement of Sunday laws WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION."
Federation of Protestant Churches
But greater than all these, more inclusive in its scope, and if possible, more energetic and determined in its policy, is the great Federation of the so-called Protestant churches of this country. It proposes, by means of the very instruments against which Congress warned the country in 1829 and 1830—"combination and influence"—to create a force which "lawmakers and law-breakers will respect and heed." This organization, claiming to represent 18,000,000 communicants, not only advocates and urges a compulsory rest day, but refuses to recognize the right of a portion of its own constituency to observe the day of its choice. Thus the weight and force of all its power and influence are thrown into the scales against liberty of conscience and in favor of religious oppression.
These are some of the forces which have set themselves against the fundamental principles of the American Government and against the religious liberty of the individual. In doing so, they have set themselves against the process by which the mighty progress of the nation was achieved, and against the spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
C. M. SNOW.
Purpose of Government
By Lord Macaulay
(Lord Macaulay, from Essay on “Civil Disabilities of the Jews”)
It is because men are not in the habit of considering what the end of government is, that Catholic disabilities and Jewish disabilities have been suffered to exist so long. We hear of essentially Protestant governments and essentially Christian governments, words which mean just as much as essentially Protestant cookery, or essentially Christian horsemanship. Government exists for the purpose of keeping the peace, for the purpose of compelling us to settle our disputes by arbitration instead of settling them by blows, for the purpose of compelling us to supply our wants by industry instead of supplying them by rapine. This is the only operation for which the machinery of government is peculiarly adapted, the only operation which wise governments ever propose to themselves as their chief object. If there is any class of people who are not interested, or who do not think themselves interested, in the security of property and the maintenance of order, that class ought to have no share of the powers which exist for the purpose of securing property and maintaining order. But why a man should be less fit to exercise those powers because he wears a beard, because he does not eat ham, because he goes to the synagogue on Saturdays instead of going to the church on Sunday, we can not conceive.
The points of difference between Christianity and Judaism have very much to do with a man’s fitness to be a bishop or a rabbi. But they have no more to do with his fitness to be a magistrate, a legislator, or a minister of finance, than with his fitness to be a cobbler. Nobody has ever thought of compelling cobblers to make any declaration on the true faith of a Christian. Any man would rather have his shoes mended by a heretical cobbler than by a person who had subscribed all the thirty-nine articles, but had never handled an awl. Men act thus, not because they are indifferent to religion, but because they do not see what religion has to do with the mending of their shoes. Yet religion has as much to do with the mending of shoes as with the budget and the army estimates. We have surely had several signal proofs within the last twenty years that a very good Christian may be a very bad chancellor of the exchequer.
But it would be monstrous, say the persecutors, that Jews should legislate for a Christian community. This is a palpable misrepresentation. What is proposed is, not that the Jews should legislate for a Christian community, but that a legislature composed of Christians and Jews should legislate for a community composed of Christians and Jews.
California and Religious Liberty
By John O. Corliss
(Continued from page 6)
giving out of such information, many would be induced to vote for the proposed Sunday rest law, who would not do so were not the aforementioned religious class to be protected.
But let voters remember this in using their Initiative privilege on this question: The proposed law once on the statute-book, a second majority vote could remove its exemption clause as easily as the first one placed it in the law. And ground would easily be found to induce such a movement. A religious law has no more right on the statute-books by use of the Initiative, than if placed there by a vote of the legislature in session. The only safe course in this thing is to let well enough alone, by giving an emphatic NO to every proposition to foist an enforced Sunday rest upon the people.
J. O. CORLISS.
Not Intolerance, but Freedom
By Lowell
It was not to such a future that the Mayflower's prow was turned;
Not to such a faith the martyrs clung, exulting as they burned;
Not by such laws are men fashioned, earnest, simple, valiant, great
In the household virtues whereon rests the unconquerable State.
Ah! there is a higher gospel, overhead the God-roof springs,
And each glad, obedient planet like a golden shuttle sings
Through the web which Time is weaving in his never-resting loom,
Weaving seasons many-colored, bringing prophecy to doom.
Think you Truth a farthing rushlight, to be pinched out when you will
With your deft official fingers, and your politicians' skill?
Is your god a wooden fetish, to be hidden out of sight,
That his block eyes may not see you do the thing that is not right?
But the Destinies think not so; to their judgment-chamber lone
Comes no noise of popular clamor, there Fame's trumpet is not blown;
Your majorities they reck not; that you grant, but then you say
That you differ with them somewhat,—which is stronger, you or they?
Patient are they as the insects that build islands in the deep;
They hurl not the bolted thunder, but their silent way they keep;
Where they have been, that we know; where empires towered that were not just,
Lo! the skulking wild fox scratches in a little heap of dust.
—Lowell.
Duty Performed Gives Music at Midnight
By George Herbert
THE consciousness of duty performed gives us music at midnight.—George Herbert.