Earlier text: General ArticlesConstitutional Amendment.
By W. H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN. In our search for Scripture testimony on the Sunday question we suggest that it would be well to first collate all the texts in the New Testament in which the first day of the week is mentioned. They are as follows: "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 sepulcher." Matt. 28:1. "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun." Mark 16:1, 2. "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." Mark 16:9. "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 sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Luke 23:56, and 24:1. "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher." John 20:1. "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." John 20:19. "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." 1 Cor. 16:2. "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." Acts 20:7. Doubtless the reader is not a little surprised, provided he has never given his attention to the subject before, at discovering the meagerness, so far as numbers at least are concerned, of the passages alluded to above. Nevertheless, let us take the data thus furnished, and from them endeavor to derive all the information which they can legitimately be made to afford. At first glance, it will be discovered that six of the passages of Scripture under consideration relate to one and the same day, which was that of the resurrection. Written as they were from five to sixty-two years this side of that occurrence, and penned by men who were profoundly interested in everything which was calculated to throw light upon matters of duty and doctrine, we would naturally expect that they would seize these most favorable opportunities for instructing those whom they were endeavoring to enlighten in regard to the time of, and circumstances connected with, the change of the Sabbath. Let us observe, therefore, how they discharge this most important responsibility. It will not be urged by any that John 20:1, and Mark 16:9, furnish anything which in any way strengthens the Sunday argument. The statements which they contain are merely to the effect that Mary Magdalene was the one to whom Christ first presented himself, and that she visited the tomb very early in the morning. Neither will it be insisted that the declaration found in Matt. 28:1, and Mark 16:1, 2, and Luke 23:56, and 24:1, afford any positive testimony for the sanctity of the first day of the week. On the contrary, we think that every candid person will concede that the bearing which they have upon the subject is rather against, than favorable to, the case which our friends are so anxious to make out. To illustrate: In Matt. 28:1, we read that "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 sepulcher." Again, in Mark 16:1, 2, the same general fact is stated, with the simple variation that, instead of the expression, in the end of the Sabbath, are substituted the words, "when the Sabbath was passed," while in Luke 23:56, and 24:1, it is declared that these things transpired on the first day of the week, the context carefully setting forth the fact that the women had "rested" upon the Sabbath, according to the commandment," and that it being past, they came to the sepulcher, bringing with them the spices which they had prepared. Now, putting all these things together, what have we learned? Manifestly, the following facts: First; when the events transpired which are set forth in these scriptures, there was a Sabbath; since it is stated, by way of locating them in point of time, that the Sabbath had ended before the affairs spoken of were transacted. Secondly; that the Sabbath, to which reference was made, was the seventh day of the week, since it preceded the first, and was that of the commandment. Thirdly; that, if the first day of the week was a Sabbath, as is now claimed, the women were ignorant of it, since it is clear that they did not go to the tomb on the seventh day to embalm the body, because of its being holy time; whereas, upon the first day of the week their scruples were gone, and they came to the sepulcher, bearing their spices with them, to accomplish a work which they would not have regarded as legitimate on the Sabbath. Fourthly; that the seventh day was not only the Sabbath at the time mentioned, but also that, according to the convictions of the historians, it was the Sabbath at the time of their writing—since they apply to it the definite article "the;" whereas, if there had been a change of Sabbaths, it would have been natural to have distinguished between them in the use of explanatory words and phrases, such as are now applied, as, for instance, "the Jewish Sabbath," "the Christian Sabbath," &c., &c. Fifthly; that, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke do, in every instance cited above, honor the seventh day of the week in the most scrupulous manner, by applying to it the Bible title of the Sabbath, they do, nevertheless, make mention of the day of the resurrection in each case, in the same connection, in the use of its secular name, "the first day of the week." This slight is utterly inexplicable, provided the latter had really put on a sacred character: since, that being true, it was much more important that its new claims should be recognized and inculcated by those who could speak with authority, than it was that they should perpetuate the distinction of a day whose honors had become obsolete. Having now examined five of the six texts under consideration, there remains but one more to occupy our attention. This reads as follows: "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." John 20:19. Here, again, we are struck with the manifest disposition on the part of John, in common with the other evangelists, to avoid the application of any sacred title to the first day of the week. Twice, in this chapter, he makes mention of that which is now regarded as the "Queen of days," but in both instances, he avoids, as if with studied care, attaching to it any denomination by which its superiority over other days should be indicated. How perfectly in keeping, for instance, it would have been with the facts as they are now claimed to have existed—as well as with the interests and desires of millions who have since lived—had he in the text before us so varied the phraseology of the first clause that it would read as follows: "And the same day at evening, being the Christian Sabbath, when the disciples were assembled," &c. This, however, he did not do, and we inquire of the reader, right here, concerning his motive in omitting that which now appears to us so desirable, and which would have been perfectly legitimate were the views of our friends correct. Did he intentionally omit an important fact? Was it left out because of an oversight on his part? Or, would it be safer to conclude that perhaps, after all, the difficulty lies, not with the apostle, or with the Holy Spirit, which dictated his language, but with the theory, which seems to be out of joint with his utterances? Nevertheless, as it is still urged that, in the absence of a positive declaration, this, the only remaining text, does furnish abundant evidence of the sacred regard in which the day of the resurrection was held—since it gives an account of a religious meeting held upon it, manifestly for the purpose of recognizing its heavenly character—let us examine more critically into the nature of the claims which are based upon its record. That those with whom we differ should be tenacious in their efforts to rest their course very largely upon the account found in John 20:19, is not at all surprising. It is the only chance, as we have seen, which is left them of basing their argument upon a passage of Scripture which relates to the day of the resurrection. So far as 1 Cor. 16:2, and Acts 20:7, are concerned, it will not be disputed by any that their testimony is only collateral evidence. If Sunday has become the Sabbath, it was by virtue of transactions which occurred immediately in connection with the rising of Christ. In other words, it was on the third day after the crucifixion that Christ, if at all, began to impress upon the minds of his disciples the Sabbatic character which had already attached to, and was henceforth to continue in, the day which saw him a conqueror over death and the grave. Nay, more; if the change occurred at all, it must have dated from the very moment that the angel descended, the guard was stricken down, and the Son of God glorified, came forth. This being the case, from that time forward it would naturally be the effort of Christ to produce in the minds of his followers the conviction of this most momentous fact. Every action of his would necessarily be—if not directly for the purpose of imprinting the peculiar sacredness of the hours upon those by whom he was surrounded—at least of a character such as to impart no sanction either to a deliberate, or even an unintentional disregard, on the part of any, of their hallowed nature. Hence, our friends, seizing upon the fact, that he met with them while assembled together in the after part of the day, have endeavored to clothe the incident with great interest, and have largely elaborated their arguments to show that this was not an accidental occurrence, but rather partook of the nature of a religious meeting, Christ himself honoring these instinctive efforts on the part of the disciples to act in harmony with the spirit of the hour, by his own personal presence. Before we sanction this view of the subject, however, let us give our attention for a moment to the manner in which the previous portion of the day, then closing, had up to that point been spent. Certain it is, that Jesus had not, during its declining hours, been suddenly moved by a newly created impulse for the accomplishment of an object which had been just as desirable for twelve hours as it was at that moment. Sunday sanctity had already become a fixed fact, and its knowledge as essential to the well-being of the disciples in the morning, as at the evening. We naturally conclude, therefore, that the very first opportunity for its disclosure would have been the one which Christ would embrace. This was afforded in his conversation with Mary. But, while there is no evidence that it was imparted, it is at least presumable that she was left entirely ignorant of it. The second occasion was presented in that of the journey of the two disciples from Jerusalem to Emmaus, a distance of seven and a half miles. Jesus walked with them and talked with them by the way, reasoned with them about the resurrection, made as though he would have gone farther, discovered himself to them in the breaking of bread, and disappeared, leaving them to retrace the seven and a half miles to the city, with no word of caution against it on his part. Nay, more; his marked approval of the propriety of the act might properly have been inferred from the fact that he himself accompanied them in the first instance, in the garb of a wayfaring man; at the same time acting the part of one who was so far convinced of the rectitude of his own and of their action, that he was ready to continue his journey until night should render it impracticable. (Luke 24:28.) Following these men now, as they retrace their steps to the city from which they had departed, and to which they were now returning—manifestly all unconscious that they were trespassing upon time which had been rescued from that which might properly be devoted to secular pursuits—let us observe them, as they mingle once more with their former companions in grief. How does it happen that they are congregated at this precise point of time? Is it because they have at last discovered the fact that it has been made in a special sense a proper day for religious assemblies? If so, whence have they derived their conviction? Certainly not from Mary, or the two disciples just returning from Emmaus. Assuredly also, not from Christ himself. But, again, is it not really from an induction on their own part, by which they have themselves discovered the fitness of making the day of resurrection also that of worship? Listen a moment. Hear their excited remarks as, at this juncture, they are joined by the two. Do you catch these words, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon"? (Luke 24:34.) Does not this establish the fact of their confidence in the previous report? Unfortunately, the historian adds, "Neither believed they them." Here they are, then, manifestly still doubting the very fact which some have thought they were convened to celebrate. But, again, what is the place of their convocation? Unquestionably, neither the temple nor the synagogue. The record states that where they were assembled "the doors were closed for fear of the Jews." Evidently they were in some place of retirement and comparative safety, hiding away from the fury of a people who, in their madness and cruel hate, had crucified even the Lord of glory. We ask again, Where were they? Let Mark explain. Certainly he is competent to the task. When describing the very transaction we are considering, he says: "Afterward he appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." Mark 16:14. Here, then, is the clue to the whole matter. It was not a religious meeting, because they were in a frame of mind to be censured, rather than applauded, because of unbelief. It was merely the body of the apostles, gathered in their own quarters for the purpose of partaking of an evening meal, where they were in the habit of eating, and drinking, and sleeping—and where, at this time, they kept particularly close, because of the perils which surrounded them on every hand. That this is true is further sustained by two additional considerations. First, it was a place where Christ expected to find meat, and where he requested such for his own use, and was supplied from their bounty with broiled fish and an honeycomb, which, the record states, "he took and did eat before them. (Luke 24:41-43.) Secondly, that they were in possession of just such a rendezvous, is clearly stated in John 20:10, where, speaking of Peter and John when going from the sepulcher, it says, "They went away unto their own home." A few days later, Luke declares (Acts 1:13,) that when they came in from the ascension, they "went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas; Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James." Thus, by a natural and easy combination of the facts brought to view by the inspired penman, the whole matter has been reduced to a simple transaction, such as might have been repeated many times during the forty days, and such as—in and of itself—fails to disclose any evidence that the occurrences narrated, either necessarily or presumptively, afford the slightest justification for the supposition that Christ himself either designed, or that the apostles might legitimately conclude that he intended, by joining them under these familiar circumstances, to authorize one of the mightiest innovations upon the practice of ages which the world has ever seen. How Best to Teach.
By Christian Teacher
"The teacher must come down to the child's level.—You cannot intelligently converse with, or impart instruction to, any man without commencing on a ground common to both. Nor can you teach a child but by condescending to his level. This calls not for childishness, but childlikeness in teaching. Dr. Watts' Hymns are not childish, but they are childlike. So are Todd's Lectures to Children. So, in a special manner, are Old Humphrey's books. These interest the old as well as the young, yet they are seldom beyond the level of a child's mind. What was the secret of this adaptation? Step into the good man's study, and I will show you how Old Humphrey did. "He sat from hour to hour at his little table, his books spread around him, the Holy Bible in the most conspicuous place, and a large card before him, on which were written in a bold style the three words—allure, instruct, impress, to remind him of his work, and the way in which it was to be done." That was the secret of his success. He adapted himself to the youthful mind, and his works evince how well he had considered his work. Come down to the child's level, and take his hand. He will ascend as lofty a summit as you can climb with him, if you give him time to take each step intelligently. Reason upwards.—State the simplest truths first, and advance only as you take the scholar with you. This process may be slow, but it is a secret of adaptation which the wise will cultivate. In the fable the tortoise outstripped the hare. "To reason with a child, or any comparatively ignorant person, for the purpose of imparting instruction, the truth must be delivered in a comprehensible way. Few are willing to confess ignorance. Most make general acknowledgments of intelligence. The only means for thorough and intelligent education of youthful minds is by patient and laborious catechising. By continuous discourse you cannot impart so much instruction as by catechising. You may probably disclose more of your information by the former, but you secure more to the scholar by the other. "There is a method of Sabbath-school instruction largely practiced and most pertinaciously adhered to, which, in a great measure, lacks the catechetical. It consists more of the exhortatory and illustrative. It is common among young teachers, in the ardor of their first love and awakened zeal, and among females, from the nature of their minds. The earnest and the lukewarm both practice it,—the one from an excess, and the other from a defect of zeal. The former is anxious to impress, and is impatient under the slow process of catechising; the latter does not wish annoyance, or the trouble of preparing. Hence both practice declamation, and telling stories, for the purpose of awakening and keeping alive the interest of their scholars. This practice is much easier than the catechetical, requires less knowledge and study, less skill and seriousness. It is much easier to give good advice to children than to break down truth by way of question and answer. It is much easier to relate exciting stories than to interest them by questions for illustration from Scripture. And many teachers, by such means, secure attention and esteem from their scholars. But we shrewdly suspect that the exercise and its result are not wholesome, or calculated to do the good desired. It is misdirected effort; it tends to dissipate the mind. "Constant exhortation and story-telling have the same effect upon young minds as novel-reading upon elder persons. It makes the mind impulsive. It feeds by excitement. It seeks to secure and keep up attention by impulsive efforts. Without them the class or school, it is imagined, would fail to attend, and hence their frequent introduction. It prevents sober thought. There is no patience for anything but the exciting. The mind wanders, and does not fix upon truth presented. Can an habitual novel-reader peruse any work of solid matter? How often do we hear the humiliating confession that such exciting reading has dissipated the mind, and prevented sober thought! In like manner, though under the garb of sanctity, and in the Sabbath-school, the practice of teaching by impassioned exhortation and light story-telling is operating very injuriously upon the minds of youth, and training a generation of novel-readers. They will not find in sermons or good books the excitement that interests their minds. Hence, if mercy prevent not, they seek to satisfy their hunger by perusing novels, and these by no means the best." Slavery as Religion in Egypt.
A recent traveler in Egypt sends us the following illustration of the endless difficulties the Khedive has to overcome in the slow progress of interior reform. Indignant that slavery should still flourish in his realm, Tewfik Pasha wished to decree its abolition in advance of the stipulations of our treaty with Egypt, which gives them from 1884-1889 respectively, but before taking such an important step, he sent and consulted the Sheik-ni-Islam. Though fully sharing the views of the temporal ruler, that slavery was an abomination, the ecclesiastic objected to its wholesale abolition on the ground that the emancipation of individual slaves was one of the most meritorious of acts, and that the Prophet had conceded this right to his followers as a means of atoning for their sins. In other words, that slavery must be maintained, as slaves are required as humane conscience-money to whitewash Mussulman backsliders, and the Khedive has not the power to deprive the faithful of divine privilege. This happened as recently as July last. Tewfik Pasha had to submit, and to renounce for the present his project of immediate emancipation.—Pall Mall Gazette. THERE is no department of the Sabbath-school work of greater importance and interest than this. We have known marked cases of hopeful conversion of children from four to seven years of age to result from the first hour of Bible instruction in the youngest infant classes. Often the character and habits of scholars as such are formed at the very first interview with their teacher, who thus meets them at the very entering in of “the gates of life.” It is well known that some of our most distinguished divines, as well as active Christian ladies, date their conversion back to the early age of four, five, or six years. Therefore take measures in every Sabbath-school to organize and sustain a first-class infant-school department.
Give the children a room by themselves if possible, to rise and sing, talk, recite, and pray. Furnish the room with a good black-board and crayons, and such Scripture prints and cards and maps as you can obtain for the walls and for use. Provide for them small, comfortable seats.
Select and call to the charge of this class the most pious, bright, cheerful, patient, loving, gentle, winning teacher for children there is to be found in the whole church, with a like assistant. Generally the teacher will be a lady, although some men greatly excel as infant-class teachers, so that the complaining remark of the little girl to her mother, that she “hadn’t any teacher to-day—it was only a man,” was quite too severe to be just. The little ones are greatly blessed in their love for their teachers, for they want a large share of demonstrative, life-like sympathy, expressed by a soft, loving voice and a gentle manner—hands that will speak in all their gestures, and a patience that endureth and a heart that loves to teach them for Christ’s sake. If the teacher feels the need of learning how to do this good work, let him visit good week-day infant-schools, and gather up suggestions and lessons, as well as confidence and inspiration, for the great work.
Visit and gather in all the children from the ages of three or four to seven years, whose parents are willing to send them, and at once teach them habits of punctuality, order, regularity, and pleasant worship. When they become well drilled and instructed, so that they can clearly read the Bible, then transfer them to older classes, unless there be good reasons to the contrary. Although they are little, they are very precious, and amply worth all the pains-taking effort you can make for them.
Let the teacher of such a class ponder and consider the characteristics of his precious charge.- Activity.—Says Mr. Hassell, “A healthful child abhors quietude,” and rightly so, as much as nature does a vacuum. Every mother knows that her little ones, if in health, “cannot bear to be still for a minute.”
- Curiosity.—Archbishop Whately says: “Curiosity is the parent of attention.”
- Inquisitiveness.—Happy is that child who is blest with a mother or teacher who will “bide patiently all the endless questionings of the little one, and will not rudely crush the rising spirit of free inquiry with an impatient nod or a frown.” Rather see in their many questions but the untutored pleadings of the little ones for care and cultivation. Oh, how much they want and deserve to have their inquisitiveness satisfied by a kind, considerate answer to all their questions!
- Fear.—Oh, how much children suffer from this cause! Their natural timidity should be respected, and not cruelly wrought upon.
- Then, too, children have wonder, and like to talk and hear of “wonderful things.”
- They have also a proper love of approbation, and they should be cheered and encouraged when they try to do well.—S. S. Index.
Preparation Behind Improvised Speeches
The Paris correspondent of the London Times once said to Thiers: "It is marvelous, M. le President, how you deliver long, improvised speeches about which you have not time to reflect." "You are not paying me a compliment," he replied, "it is criminal in a statesman to improvise speeches on public affairs. The speeches you call improvised, why for fifty years I have been rising at five in the morning to prepare them." Decision of the Supreme Court--The Sunday Law Sustained.
By Editor
A CASE on appeal has been before the full bench of the Supreme Court over two months. A decision was expected February 3. It was rendered March 10. The law of the State was sustained by four against three. Instead of any comments of our own we copy from the principal papers of San Francisco, and also give some extracts from the Justices. In some of the city dailies the editorials are long, and we can only give brief extracts. The Alta says:-- "The decision rendered by the Supreme Court yesterday, declaring the Sunday law to be constitutional, proves a general surprise and promises to induce complications which will make it very unpopular. There is an old maxim that all common sense should be law, but that not all law is common sense. The Sunday law is likely to fall under this condemnation. The Supreme Court decides that to enforce observance of the Sabbath will not be an unfair abridgment of personal liberty, and places within the power of a vigorous, though not definitely ascertained, class of public agitators, the legal right to cause the cessation of business in all but a few branches absolutely necessary to operate on Sunday. The law permits the Sunday carrying on of hotels, eating-houses, drug stores, and a few other businesses which the method of living here require for the satisfaction of unavoidable wants, but aside from these an embargo is put upon all forms of traffic, some of which are of a character most important by their likelihood to create serious social disturbances if interrupted." "There will soon be two sharply defined parties, equally vigorous in favor of and opposition to the law. There is already a rich and powerful body, the League of Freedom, organized to defeat the ends of the Sunday Law, and which has announced its intention of conducting against it a political war. The question will be a leading public issue, and State politics will be largely subordinated to it. It is not difficult to see that there will be a numerous, energetic, wealthy, and influential element engaged in a determined effort to elect a State Legislature pledged to repeal the Sunday Law. In the present condition of politics it is almost safe to predict that this element will succeed. The opposing body may exhibit great strength and make some surprising efforts, but the odds are against them. With this view, it seems that after all the agitation, that after all the moral victory one body claims in the decision rendered yesterday, that after all the quarreling sure to result from the endeavors to enforce the law from now until it is either abandoned by its present supporters or is defeated at the polls, it will, after all, be proved that the long, exhaustive, and bitter controversies, the legal battles and score of incidentals, with the Sunday Law itself, have been ill-advised and for the present useless so far as regards the standard of practicability." The Examiner speaks of it briefly. The following are its opening words:-- "The Supreme Court of the State has decided that the Sunday law is not in conflict with the Constitution. In this view a bare majority of the Court concur, three of the seven Justices dissenting. The opinions were rendered yesterday and will be found in our local columns this morning. The fact that the Court is so nearly equally divided upon the question shows upon what a slender thread important rulings sometimes hang. A single change in the make-up of the Court might result in a reversal of this decision at any time." The Evening Post considers it very doubtful whether the law can be enforced to any great extent. It commences its long editorial as follows:-- "The Supreme court in the Koser case, from Santa Clara county, has affirmed the constitutionality of the so-called Sunday Law. This was not an unexpected result. Nevertheless, it remains to be determined whether or not it is a final settlement of the case. Laws, like governments, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That is a fundamental principle of republican government; it is a foundation stone of our republic, deliberately selected by the patriotic fathers to whose wisdom and love of freedom we are indebted for the enlightened and liberal form of government we enjoy. A law which is obnoxious to the masses of the people, or inimical to the test interests of any considerable class, can never be enforced in this country, though it be authorized by the most direct mandate of the constitution, and framed with due regard to the strictest requirements of technical construction." Its closing paragraph is suggestive, and echoes the prevailing opinion that it will now become the leading question in the next election:-- "But after all we fancy the next Legislature will be called upon to set at rest all doubts and quibbles as to this law. Undoubtedly the demand will be made for the repeal of the law, and with equal certainty the question of repeal or non-repeal will enter into the election of Senators and Representatives next fall. That election, then, will determine the will of the people in that regard, and from that tribunal there will be no appeal." The Chronicle's remarks are mostly confined to an argument to prove that the law does not prevent the Sunday sale of papers. According to the reports of "interviewers," able lawyers express the opinion that the arguments of the dissenting Justices will carry more weight with the public generally than will the decisions of the affirming majority. That the dissenting Justices make strong points will hardly be denied, and they are presented in a clear and forcible manner. The following extracts will give a good idea of their positions:-- "Judge McKinstry, in dissenting, held that the free exercise of religious profession and worship, without crimination or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this State; Sunday laws have never been upheld in California on any other ground than that they simply provided for a period of rest. It is absolutely the right, therefore, of every citizen, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and to keep holy such days as his own religion may sanctify, and it would be difficult to convince an orthodox Jew, for example, who has abstained from secular employment on Saturday, that a law which compels him to refrain from like employment on Sunday gives no preference to other forms of religion. Certainly all argument based upon the supposed physical benefits derived from a stated day of rest would have little application and furnish little ground for enforcing a Sunday law upon one who has taken his rest on the preceding day. The statute declares it to be a crime against religion not to refrain from certain secular employment upon Sunday. To enforce such a law is in effect to punish him for a disregard of a religious institution or ordinance; to enforce it against one whose religion attributes no sanctity to the institution or ordinance, but requires of him to keep sacred, as of binding obligation, another day in the week--to discriminate against the free exercise of his religious profession and worship." Justice Sharpstein gave a long dissenting opinion which he says:-- "I cannot assent to the proposition that this law can be regarded as it would be if the day designated in it had not been the Sabbath of any religious sect, nor do I think that the Legislature would have the constitutional power to make it a misdemeanor for any person to keep his place of business open on any day other than the Sabbath of some religious sect for the transaction of business which it would be neither illegal, immoral, nor improper to transact on any other day than the one so designated. As I read the Constitution, it is not only required that the Legislature shall recognize the existence of religious sects, that it shall protect them in the exercise and enjoyment of religious worship without discrimination or preferences." "If it be necessary that people should rest one day in seven, and unnecessary that they should rest two days in seven, and wholly immaterial on what day they rest, it was the duty of the Legislature to take notice of the fact that many people are constrained by their religion to rest on the seventh day of each week, and to have excepted them from the operation of the Sunday law. * It is impossible for a person whose religion constrains him to observe the seventh day of each week to live up to the requirements of his religion, and at the same time obey the law without sacrificing one day more each week than the person whose religion constrains him to observe the first day, or the one who is not constrained by religion to observe any. It does seem to me that this constitutes a discrimination or preference, and as I understand the Constitution, the Legislature has no power to pass such a law." "It is no answer to say that the law ignores religion altogether, because the Legislature has no right under the Constitution to ignore religion when passing laws which must seriously affect those who profess it in some one of its various forms. If it is only necessary that the people of this State should rest one day in seven, and wholly immaterial on what day of the week they rest, those whose religion requires them to rest on a day other than that designated in the Sunday law should have been excepted from its operation in order to avoid discrimination or preference which the Constitution forbids." Other grounds than these are taken by the dissenting justices concerning the lawful use of labor and property. But we are most interested in those portions here noticed. The papers report a rather poorly attended and unenthusiastic meeting held in San Francisco to honor the decision of the Court. Dr. Otis Gibson was the speaker. In the report of his speech we find the following words:-- "The Cherokee Indians tarred and feathered men who broke their laws, and burned their houses and beat them, and that was what he wanted to see done to the saloon men if they broke the Sunday Law." If the "Reverend D. D." will take the pains to read the Sunday Law he will find that tarring and feathering is not the penalty attached to that law by the Legislature. Such foolish ranting does not increase respect for the law, or for its advocates. The Sunday question is now fairly launched upon the stormy sea of politics, with the prospect that the present law will be hopelessly wrecked. If that result shall be reached it will be attended with unpleasant and undesirable consequences, as a day of rest will thereafter, at least for a season, scarcely be known in California. We would not wish to see such a state of things, but it will be a natural reaction from an unwise attempt to interfere too far with civil and religious freedom. The advocates of the enforcement of this law have no doubt acted unwisely in attempting to uphold it solely as an anti-liquor law. It is such in no sense. It is true that it forbids the sale of liquors (by certain parties only, while it permits it by other parties), on one day in seven; but it is equally true that it forbids labor of every kind (by certain parties only, and not by others) on the same day. It is an anti-labor law to the same extent that it is an anti-liquor law. If the temperance workers really wish a prohibitory law, let them secure a law to that effect and work on a temperance basis, and not try to enforce Sunday under the guise of a temperance movement. As a political question we have nothing to do with it. We do not advocate the Sabbath or oppose the Sunday on any such grounds. How far it may be decided to leave it in the hands of politicians to settle, we cannot now say. We have stood on aggressive ground as Sabbath reformers for more than a quarter of a century. We desire to act with becoming prudence and discretion, and not move hastily even where Providence seems to open the way. We know this, however, that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," and that the Third Angel's Message of Rev. 14:9-12, will, by such means as the Creator of heaven and earth shall choose, yet go forth to "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." And may the Lord hasten the day to his own glory.