To know just how far civil rulers may extend their authority is a question that has perplexed the minds of statesmen and politicians for ages in the past. All the religious wars, the persecutions, and innocent blood that has been shed over questions of religion, have been on account of civil rulers invading the realm of the sacred and defining the religious duties of their subjects.
Therefore, to understand the limits of civil government is to know what are those inalienable rights over which civil law can have no jurisdiction.
We do not think it necessary to enter into a lengthy disquisition upon this question. The grouping together of a few plain facts which all can understand will enable the reader to grasp the distinction between the civil and the divine government, and hence the limits of human legislation, more readily than a more intricate and lengthy argument would do.
1. All agree to the truth, as set forth in the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States, that there are certain rights retained by or reserved to the people, over which the state can have no jurisdiction.
2. That, prominent among the rights reserved to the people, is the right to each individual to choose his religion and the manner of expressing it, provided he leaves every other person free to make the same choice, or, as it is expressed in the Declaration of Rights drawn up by the House of Burgesses of Virginia on June 12, 1776, that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience.”
3. That religion, or a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God, “can not be transferred to another.”
4. All the power possessed by civil rulers is delegated to them by the people, or, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
5. Therefore, as the state can not exercise any authority not delegated to it by the people, and as the people can not transfer their religion to the state, it is plain to all that the state can have nothing to do with religion. “But,” says our Sunday-law advocate, “while we agree with you that the state can have nothing to do with religion, yet we do not agree with you that the state can not enforce a day of the week as the Sabbath, for we do not believe that this is religious legislation.”
We submit that upon this point turns the whole question; and, further, we believe that the settlement of this question is destined to convulse the world as no other question that has ever been submitted to the people. It is more widespread in its nature and consequences than any other church dogma that was ever forced upon the attention of the public, and it is time that every citizen, not only of this government, but of every other government, should know whether the enforcement of a weekly day of rest comes within the purview of civil legislation. To show that it does not, we submit the following facts and considerations.
All agree that the seventh-day Sabbath is enjoined by express command of God; that the Lord calls it “my holy day,” and commands us “to keep it holy.” Isa. 58 : 13; Ex. 20 : 8–11. Is not an institution commanded of God to be kept holy a religious institution?—It surely is.
Now, suppose the state should see fit to compel the people to keep the seventh day, or Saturday, as a civil institution, would it not outwardly compel obedience to a religious ordinance? Would not every Catholic and Sunday-keeping Protestant so regard it?—Indeed they would. “But,” says the secular advocate, “Sunday, or the first day of the week, is not based upon any command of God; therefore, if the state should compel its observance as a civil day, it would not be enforcing a religious institution, as that which has no command of God can not be religious.” We freely admit that Sunday-keeping is not based upon any command of God; nevertheless is it not religious? There are false religions as well as the true.
To illustrate: Suppose the state in response to a demand by the followers of “the prophet” should pass a law compelling the observance of Friday as a weekly rest day, would not every person who kept that day outwardly observe the sign of the religion of Mohammed?
Again, would not every observer of the first day rise up in opposition to the state authorities and say, “You are compelling us to acknowledge Mohammed as the prophet of God by compelling us to observe his sign”?—We know they would. Carrying out the same line of reasoning, if the state compel the observance of Sunday, the sign of the religion of both Pagan and Papal Rome, would it not be to compel (so far as outward action could show) the recognition of the religion of Rome?—Every candid person must admit that it would.
Then, as the observance of a weekly Sabbath is a religious act, and the keeping or not keeping of it is to be left to the decision of the individual conscience, it follows that for civil government to legislate upon the observance of a Sabbath, is overstepping the limits of its power, and can not be obeyed by those who feel that they “must obey God rather than man.”
Grand Lodge, Mich.
PUT UP THY SWORD.
By Charles Miles Snow
BY CHARLES MILES SNOW.
How oft poor man on stilted pride,
In worldly wisdom wise,
Seeks by a tower of human woe
To scale the bending skies!
How often in a godly zeal
To work the will of God
Vain man has slain his fellow-man
And on God's image trod!
Go, learned man, to Olivet,
And hear thy Maker's word;
Cast down thy wisdom to the earth,
And let his voice be heard.
Why talk of heaven here below,
And torture while you pray,
Because your victim chooses not
The counsel of your way?
O, that proud man could see the wrong,
The burning shamefulness,
Of foisting on his fellow-man
A course so conscienceless!
Canst think that thou the Pattern art,
Thy creed a turner's mill
Where God designs to fashion souls
According to his will?
Think well, O error-brooding man,
Filled with all frailties,
Can thy weak mind so easy scan
All that thy Maker's is?
The rising sun's reflected rays
Oft shine from stagnant pools;
Some view them from the clearer deep,
And still they are not fools.
The heavenly eye-salve may have made
That pilgrim's vision keen,
So that his eyes are viewing now
What thine have never seen.
Think not to quench with flame or knout
Or iron-shackled hand
The light of God's undying love
That shines from Canaan's land.
Wouldst thou like Peter smite for God
With human-fashioned brand?
“Put up thy sword into its sheath;”
Christ spurns the bloody hand.
Ye who oppress, in zeal for God,
This goodly lesson take:
Your Lord not only censures you
But heals the hurt you make.
THE GOSPEL: ITS OBJECT, AND MEANS OF PROMOTION.
By Francis M. Wilcox
BY F. M. WILCOX.
The Gospel is comprehended in the life, words, and works of Jesus Christ. He stands as its great central figure, as the chief cornerstone of its superstructure. With him it begins, and he is its life, light, and power. The object of Christ is the object of the Gospel; his purpose, its purpose.
The reason for Christ’s manifestation in the flesh, is plainly declared by the Scriptures to be to save men from sin, to restore to them the innocency lost in the fall, thus bestowing upon them everlasting life and happiness. The glad tidings of great joy announced by the angels to the shepherds of Galilee were based upon the fact that unto them was born that day in the city of David a Saviour, Jesus Christ the Lord. Gabriel declared concerning Mary, “She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.” Paul declares in his letter to Timothy, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” And our Lord himself declares, in his first recorded sermon, in applying to his own mission the words of the prophet, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”
Of the work to be wrought by this Gospel of grace the apostle thus writes to Titus: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” The Gospel is designed to take out of the nations of men a people for the Lord. Acts 15:14. This is also shown in the words of the great commission, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel [make disciples] to every creature.” Thus is the object of the Gospel plainly stated in the Scriptures of truth.
But to understand how the Gospel accomplishes this purpose, its character and the nature of its work must be studied. To every Bible student it must be evident:—
1. That the Gospel is spiritual; hence its promotion must be by spiritual means. Says the Saviour, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” Writes Paul to the Corinthians: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
The Gospel pertains not to the external alone, but to the internal as well. It has to6do not only with man’s outward acts, but with the prompting motives of those acts, and with the secret thoughts of the heart. See 1 John 3:15; 2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 3:5, and other scriptures.
Being thus spiritual, only the wisdom of God can make of it a proper application, or determine when it is accomplishing its work.
It can be promoted only by spiritual means. For such promotion is the Spirit of God given. That Spirit draws men to Christ (John 12:32); reproves the world of sin, of judgment, and of righteousness (John 16:8); leads into all truth (verse 13), and takes of the deep and hidden things of God, and reveals them to the believer’s spiritual sight (1 Cor. 2:9, 10). It will thus be seen that the Gospel is spiritual. It has its application even to the smallest minutiae of life, taking into account the thoughts and intents of the heart. Only He who can discern the prompting motives of the outward actions can properly apply the spiritual truth contained in the Gospel of our Lord. For a man to attempt its application is to make himself a Saviour, and claim equality with God. God only, through the agency of his Spirit, can accomplish in the hearts of men his purpose.
2. The accomplishment of the Gospel purpose demands creative power. Redemption is recreation. The image of God in the soul, obliterated by sin, must be restored by creative energy. Says the scripture: “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” A new life, even the life of Christ, is given the child of God. Gal. 2:20. In receiving this life we become partakers of the divine nature. 2 Peter 1:4. Thus is experienced the new birth (John 3:5), or the new creation, necessary to an entrance into the kingdom of God.
It will be seen that the only power that can promote the Gospel in its object and purpose is creative power. The work can not be done by fire, or sword; by human resolution, or legal enactment. These may cause conformity in outward life, but without the accompaniment of the spiritual, creative power of God, the heart still remains unchanged and unregenerated, while the outward life at best is but hypocritical assumption. When an attempt is made by material means to accomplish that which can be wrought only by a miracle of saving grace, power of divine sacrifice is denied, and men seek by their own efforts to accomplish that which required the sacrifice of the Son of God.
There has been in the past, and there is in the world to-day, a sentiment that by legal enactment and the enforcement of law men can be made better. Not only is the accomplishment of such an object an impossibility as seen by the character of the Gospel, but the thought is also opposed to the underlying principle of salvation.
The Gospel is based upon love. Love is its impelling power: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” As love is the well-spring of the Gospel, the basic principle which calls it into existence, so love must be the constraining power in its promulgation. “The love of Christ constraineth us,” writes Paul to the Corinthians. The Gospel of love can not be a Gospel of force. Men are not compelled to accept its claims. “Whosoever will may come;” whosoever will may remain away. To force upon men the Gospel of righteousness would be to subvert the principle of free moral agency, which obtains throughout the universe of God. The Lord respects the individual right of free choice with which he has invested every individual. He regards every man’s individuality, hence the language of the Gospel is the language of beseeching, not commanding; of drawing, not driving; of love, not force.
Says Christ: “I came not to condemn the world, but to save the world.” “My kingdom is not of this world.” To Peter, on the night of the betrayal, he said, “Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” The language of Christ’s ambassadors is, “We beseech;” “We exhort;” “We admonish;” “We pray you in Christ’s stead.” As God himself does not force the will, nor compel service, he certainly has not delegated to man the exercise of such prerogative over his fellows. Therefore, every attempt of man to seek by legal enactment, or by material means, to promote the object of the Gospel of Christ; must signally fail of its purpose. Government may secure conformity of outward action to its requirements, but it can not renew a right spirit, nor create a clean heart. It can not deal with spiritual things, nor discern the motives and intents of the soul. He who has all power in heaven and in earth has by virtue of that power commissioned his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all men. His power and presence accompanying their efforts alone makes the Gospel effective: “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” This is the promise to every ambassador of the Lord Jesus. And, drawing power from the unlimited resources of Him who is abundantly able to do above all that may be required, the servant has no need to seek help from the arm of flesh. The King of kings and the Lord of lords has pledged to him his support and power. To turn aside and seek help from the nations of earth is to prove faithless to his Master, and deny the efficiency of that power pledged to his support. But, trusting that power, altho opposed by all the governments of earth, he can say, as did the prophet of old, “They that be with us are more than they that be with them.” This firm reliance upon God is the power of the church to-day. To turn from him and seek affiliations with the nations of men is but to deny the power of the Gospel of Christ.
PRACTICAL WORKING OF SUNDAY LAWS.
The Possibilities When Carried to Their Logical Conclusion.
THAT Sunday laws, or any religious legislation by civil powers, are void of moral principle is amply shown in the history and present workings of such enactments.
Sun worship and its long train of consequent idolatry, together with the coeval recognition of Sunday as a solar holiday, is as old as history itself. But of the formal codes on the subject the oldest on record is that of Emperor Constantine, A.D. 321, which forbade common labor and business by judges and townspeople only. Soon afterward the emperor formally espoused Christianity, and the empire was nominally decreed to be Christian. Then Sunday became a legal “Christian” institution. About forty years afterward the spirit that has always been behind such legislation had so permeated the church authorities that they were ready to decree anathema against all who should observe the seventh day “according to the commandment.” This decree was passed by a church council at Laodicea, A.D. 364. The history of church and state union from that period on is well known—it has been a continual effort to control the consciences of men by human laws, with varied success as the tide of religious liberty would ebb and flow.
Coming on to America, whither the Pilgrim Fathers fled in quest of religious liberty, we find that they themselves, in a very short time, played the part of persecutors and inquisitors. And, naturally enough, the spirit of tyranny was manifested in their absurd laws regarding Sunday observance. Whipping, hanging, banishment, etc., were the result.
With the rise of the republic, liberty of conscience prevailed for a century, but for the last decade the spirit of intolerance has been on the rise. And, true to the principle that “history repeats itself,” it is rising on the clamor for stricter and more intolerant Sunday observance. And, as ever in the past, the more this dogmatic observance is agitated, the more the law of God—the Golden Rule—is ignored; and, we may add, the more our constitutional guarantees of civil and religious liberty are trampled down.
But in no age have we any more practical illustration of the influence and effect of enforced Sunday observance than in our time, the present time. That the spirit of the Sunday law is one of intolerance is demonstrated in the fact that it is used as a club to beat down those who conscientiously observe the day which the commandment of God designates as the Sabbath. And it seeks occasion from the most trivial circumstances. Its adherents ignore the most conspicuous labor on that day, and spy out those who are doing the most quiet work, in the most secluded places; and why?—Because they observe another Sabbath.
For instance, a minister and a schoolteacher are arranging desks in a building preparatory to opening school the next day, and they are arrested for disturbing someone who lives half a mile distant, and who would have known nothing of the affair but what an overzealous official wanted to witness who was disturbed. The people who lived near by where the “crime” was committed were not disturbed, hence were not material witnesses.
A poor cripple is spied out, in a great city, who in the quiet of his own room is mending his own shoes. He is arrested late at7night and dragged to prison. A laboring man returns a borrowed wheelbarrow on Sunday, and the majesty of the law, as seen through the spectacles of some professed Christians and an august court, is only satisfied with an imprisonment of the offender for a term of seventy-five days. A small merchant in a New England town sells a half pound of candy, and the court says the law’s injured dignity can only be satisfied by a fifty-dollar fine.
In a certain town in Tennessee were eight poor men whose “Christian” neighbors were greatly disturbed because they did not observe Sunday. Notwithstanding the fact that all manner of business was being transacted all around, these eight men, whose labor was of the most obscure character, in some cases mere chores, were singled out for prosecution. And why?—Because they had observed another Sabbath. They were sent to the jail and chain-gang for various terms. Of course they would not work on the Sabbath, and were not compelled to do so, but the authorities added those days to the term of imprisonment. And this, too, in face of the provision of the state constitution that “no person shall, in time of peace, be required to perform any service to the public on any day set apart by his religion as a day of rest.”
The judge, in sentencing the first offenders under the law, manifested considerable sympathy for them. He was constrained to say of them to the jury that they “are a very respectable element of Christian believers, who are honest, inoffensive, law-abiding people in all matters not conflicting with their sense of duty, who believe they are under divine command to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath.” Under this knowledge of their character he imposed a merely nominal fine and costs. But when some of them were arraigned a second time, he was in some way impressed that a nominal fine, although within the provision of the law, would not satisfy the law. They had failed to take warning, and had failed to appreciate the leniency of the court. Hence heavier penalties must be imposed.
In Illinois five men are arrested for doing ordinary labor on Sunday. They are convicted and fined, notwithstanding that the law provides that it “shall not be construed to prevent the due exercise of conscience by whomever thinks proper to keep any other day as a Sabbath.”
In Maryland an honest laboring man has been arrested and imprisoned three times on the complaint of “Christian” neighbors, who are taking this way to banish him from the neighborhood. Roger Williams was directly banished from Massachusetts for his opposition to Sunday laws, and laws enforcing man’s duty as expressed in the first four commandments, and it will come to that again, in other states. In fact, leaders of this so-called National Reform movement have openly advocated banishment for opponents to “Christian” laws.
Here is a case that is not the result of a Sunday law, but it is the same spirit that is behind the Sunday law: In Butte, Montana, Aug. 3, 1895, a Hebrew was arrested for selling goods without license. Being too poor to pay his fine, he was put in the chain-gang to work it out. Being an orthodox Hebrew, when Sabbath (Saturday) came, he told the authorities that he could not work, as it was the Sabbath, upon which he was put into a dungeon and water pumped in so that he could not sit down. Two men called on the mayor of the city to learn the reason of such treatment, and were told that the American people kept Sunday, and it did not matter whether a man kept the seventh day or not, if he was in the chain-gang and refused to work Saturday, he would have to take the consequences.
These are but a few specimen cases out of many that might be cited. About ten years ago this revival of the practical application of the long-dormant Sunday laws which (dis)grace the statute books of most of the states, was begun—upon observers of the seventh day. The progress of the work is shown in the fact that within the past year about as much has been done in that line as in the nine preceding years. And the cry is ringing louder and louder, Great is the potency of the Sunday law in the general work of reform. Arkansas opened the ball, but became temporarily ashamed of it and took a recess. A half dozen other states have practically taken up the cause of Sunday observance by compulsion, and still others are whetting their swords.
In Georgia the possibilities under the Sunday law are that violators may be sold to contractors to work under the most cruel and rigorous treatment, and in certain emergencies the punishment of death may follow. And the climax of iniquity is that an inducement for spying upon neighbors is held out in the provision that a portion of fines for such offense shall go to the support of Sunday schools.
The association that for years has stood in the van of the National Reform movement, now espoused by nearly all the churches and church societies and religious reform organizations, has this avowed purpose: “To secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will declare the nation’s allegiance to Jesus Christ, . . . and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” Leaders in this movement have declared that violations of such laws are treason, and should be punished as such. With their fast-growing influence, and the rapid growth of their cause, the ultimate object would seem to be not far in the future.
All the tyrannies that have ever grown out of religious legislation have had small beginnings. History, yes, even the occurrences of our own day, admonish us that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Let the people beware, and let our legislators beware, of opening the door to such possibilities. One taste of enforcement of religious dogma by civil law, but whets the appetite for more.—Present Crisis.
Religious Liberty and the Limits of Government Power
By Hon. R. M. Johnson
AMONG all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for the violation of what government denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the Constitution has wisely withheld from our government the power of defining the divine law. It is a right reserved to each citizen; and, while he respects the rights of others, he can not be held amenable to any human tribunal for his conclusions.—Hon. R. M. Johnson.
OLD GLORY.
By James G. Clarke
Knaves have stolen thee, Old Glory,
For their Babylonian bowers;
From their festal walls and towers
Droops the flag that once was ours.
O’er their crimes thy beauty trails,
And the old-time answer fails
When from chain-gangs, courts, and jails
Men appeal to thee, Old Glory.
—James G. Clarke, in the Arena.
WHAT CHRIST TAUGHT.
Nearly nineteen hundred years ago Jesus Christ announced the doctrine of religious liberty in the following utterances:—
“All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” Matt. 7:12.
“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.
These utterances need no extended comment. Applied to the subject of religious faith and practice, or freedom of conscience, they grant the fullest liberty to believe or not to believe. If the Christian desires that the “heathen Chinese” should grant him the privilege of teaching, preaching, or practicing the religion of Christ, it is the duty of the Christian to grant the Chinese the privilege of teaching, preaching, or practicing the religion of Joss or Buddha. And as the Christian conscience would revolt at the idea of paying reverence or regard to the idolatrous forms of worship of the Chinese, and would feel that it was oppression or persecution were he required so to do, so he has no right, according to the teaching of Christ, to compel, or seek to compel, the heathen to pay reverence or regard for Christian ceremonies or observances. And this is true respecting all classes of religionists. The teaching of Christ makes it incumbent upon the Christian to act toward the devotees of all religions as they would that the devotees of these religions should act toward them.
The second scripture quoted above puts non-acquiescence in religious faith on the basis, not of privilege, but, so far as man is concerned, of right—the right to differ, the right to believe or not to believe, the right to worship or not to worship. And the positive declaration of Him who could read all hearts was that He would not judge or condemn the unbeliever. Have his erring followers the right to go beyond this? He said that all judgment, all condemnation, was to be left “to the last day.” Have his followers the right to judge now?
Not Institutions but Men.—One of the objects of the Christian Citizenship movement, the American Sabbath Union, the National Reform Association, etc., is to protect, or to promote, or both, certain religious institutions, among which is the so-called “American Sunday,” or “American Sabbath,” tho what there is about it exclusively or particularly American no one has ever told us. In other words, it is the church Sunday. But herein these organizations are opposed to true Americanism and genuine liberty; for the true province of civil government is to protect, not institutions, but men—to protect men in their equal rights. As Thomas Jefferson expresses it, “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” This is the true principle of liberty in government.
To the Individual.—The government which regards the rights of its subjects, will not exalt institutions above men, but men above institutions. The institution may be honored if men will, but its observance will never be compulsory. Not only this, but a true government will not subject the individual man to the arbitrary demands of the many. Man surrenders no inalienable right to society or government. If the government be a true government, it conserves and guards the rights of each one and each one in his rights. And when each person is protected in his rights, all are protected in their rights. And as long as each man is protected in his rights, so long can no person or class suffer from the infringement of their rights. The thing to be exalted, therefore, in a just and permanent government is the individual man and his inalienable rights, whether he be Jew or Christian, infidel or believer; for in this only are the rights of all conserved.
Class Legislation.—It is a deadly poison, which these reform organizations are injecting into our government and body politic. It is deranging and perverting every just principle of liberty and humanity. It is sacrificing man to institutions, principles of right to popular prejudices, right or wrong. That government which exalts in its laws institutions at the expense of human rights will always and forever be guilty of class legislation and subject to class prejudices, traditions, bickerings, strifes, jealousies. For instance, the so-called “American Sunday” is a class institution, and nothing else. It is a religious class institution. People may observe it who will, but they have neither human nor divine right to say he shall observe or honor it who elects otherwise. Nay, more, they have no right to say that he must honor it who elects so to do. The honor or observance is elective; the right of choice is universal, vested in the individual, and dominant over all civil authority whatsoever. The observance or non-observance of the institution is a matter of conscience between the individual and the being he may call God, but it is not a matter with which the state has any right to interfere, except to guard the equal rights of all her citizens and subjects.
“The Survival of the Fittest.”—Laws for the protection of human rights are necessary, but class institutions, among which are all religious days and dogmas, must depend for their existence and promotion on the loyalty, devotion, and zeal of their adherents. If they are worthy to live, if they are of benefit to the human race, if there is back of them real intrinsic worth, their value will be recognized, and they will be perpetuated in the hearts and lives of their constant and multiplying constituency. But if these institutions can not be thus maintained by their inherent worth, they deserve to die. And, above all other classes, Christians should recognize this fact and indorse this sentiment. Jesus Christ declares, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” Matt. 15:13. Men may bolster up Sunday by tradition and false teaching, they may put behind it all the combined power of civil government, but if it is not of God, it will surely perish, and will include in its destruction all those who have identified themselves with it. But if it be of God, let its religious friends look to him with the calm faith of an Elijah. The Rock, and all builded upon it, will endure. All the storms of infidelity may break upon it, but the waves and winds will prove to be but spray, which will whiten, harden, and polish the Rock. We leave these queries with those of our readers who hold to the Sunday institution: Is not their appeal to civil law a tacit confession that they know that the Sunday is not of Christ, that it is not of God’s planting? Or if they believe it to be of God, does not their appeal to civil law show that they have lost faith in the “all power” of the Gospel?
