Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    February 13, 1896

    “Religious Liberty in Virginia” American Sentinel 11, 7, pp. 49, 50.

    ATJ

    VIRGINIA, a State which has long stood second to none in guaranteeing liberty of conscience, seems about to enact additional Sunday statutes.AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.1

    The text of the proposed “law” was published in these colums [sic.] last week. It is designed to affect only railroad and steamship companies, but it violates the principles of the separation of Church and State, so ably advocated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, more than a century ago, just as truly as though it proposed to interfere with the individual citizen.AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.2

    Human rights antedate all governments. They existed as soon as man was created, and are entirely independent of civil authority; and it seems strange that the legislators of any American commonwealth should entertain for a moment the idea that rights are conferred by the State; and yet such is the thought underlying all religious legislation.AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.3

    The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, presents the matter in its true light, namely, that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and “that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men.”AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.4

    Subsequently to writing the immortal Declaration, Mr. Jefferson wrote:—AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.5

    Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him. 1Letter to Frances W. Gilmer, “Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Vol. 7, p. 3.AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.6

    And again in the same letter Jefferson says: “When the laws have declared and enforced all this [natural rights and duties], they have fulfilled their functions; and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right.AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.7

    Mr. Jefferson very pertinently remarks that “the trial of every law by one of these tests would lessen much the labors of our legislators, and lighten equally our municipal codes.”AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.8

    Tried by the rule stated by Jefferson, the Sunday bill now before the Virginia legislature will be found to far exceed the rightful limits of legislative power.AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.9

    The late Alexander H. Stevens entertained views similar to those held by Mr. Jefferson. He said:—AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.10

    In forming single societies or States, men only enter into a compact with each other—a social compact—either expressed or implied, as before stated, for their mutual protection in the enjoyment by each of all their natural rights. The chief object of all good governments, therefore, should be the protection of all the natural rights of their constituent members.AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.11

    Upon entering into society for the purpose of having their natural rights secured and protected, or properly redressed, the weak do not give up or surrender any portion of their priceless heritage in any government instituted and organized as it should be.AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.12

    In no other State have such questions been any more thoroughly discussed than in Virginia. “Early in the autumnal session of the legislature of 1785,” says Bancroft, 2“History of the United States,” Vol. VI, pp. 156-158. “Patrick Henry proposed a resolution for a legal provision for the teachers of the Christian religion. In the absence of Jefferson, the opponents of the measure were led by Madison, whom Witherspoon 3Rev. John Witherspoon, D.D., LL. D., President of Princeton College, and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. had imbued with theological lore. The assessment bill, he said, exceeds the functions of civil authority. The question has been stated as if it were, Is religion necessary? The true question is, Are establishments necessary for religion? And the answer is, they corrupt religion. The difficulty of providing for the support of religion is the result of the war, to be remedied by voluntary association for religious purposes. In the event of a statute for the support of the Christian religion, are the courts of law to decide what is Christianity? and, as a consequence, to decide what is orthodoxy and what is heresy? The enforced support of the Christian religion dishonors Christianity. Yet, in spite of all the opposition that could be mustered, leave to bring in the bill was granted by forty-seven votes against thirty-two. 4Madison to Jefferson, 9 january, 1785. Madison, I, 180. The bill, when reported, prescribed a general assessment on all taxable property for the support of teachers of the Christian religion. Each person, as he paid his tax, was to say to which society he dedicated it; in case he refused to do so, his payment was to be applied toward the maintenance of a county school. On the third reading the bill received a check, and was ordered by a small majority to be printed and distributed for the consideration of the people. Thus the people of Virginia had before them for their choice the bill of the revised code for establishing religious freedom, and the plan of desponding churchmen for the supporting religion by a general assessment.AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.13

    “All the State, from the sea to the mountains and beyond them, was alive with the discussion. Madison, in a remonstrance addressed to the legislature, embodied all that could be said against the compulsory maintenance of Christianity and in behalf of religious freedom as a natural right, the glory of Christianity itself, the surest method of supporting religion, and the only way to produce moderation and harmony among its several sects. George Mason, who was an enthusiast for entire freedom, asked of Washington his opinion, and received for answer that ‘no man’s sentiments were more opposed to any kind of restraint upon religious principles.’ While he was not among those who were so much alarmed at the thought of making people of the denominations of Christians pay toward the support of that denomination which they professed, provided Jews, Mahometans, and others who were not Christians, might obtain proper relief, his advice was given in these words: ‘As the matter now stands, I wish an assessment had never been agitated; and, as it has gone so far, that the bill could die an easy death.’ 5Washington to George Mason, 3 October, 1785. Spark’s ix, 187.AMS February 13, 1896, page 49.14

    “The general committee of the Baptists unanimously appointed a delegate to remonstrate with the general assembly against the assessment, and they resolved that no human laws ought to be established for that purpose; that every free person ought to be free in matters of religion. 6Semple’s “History of the Baptists,” etc., 71; Foote’s “Sketches of Virginia” 364. The general convention of the Presbyterian Church prayed the legislature expressly that the bill concerning religious freedom might be passed into a law as the best safeguard then attainable for their religious rights. 7Madison, i, 214.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.1

    “When the legislature of Virginia assembled, no one was willing to bring forward the assessment bill, and it was never heard of more. Out of one hundred and seventeen articles of the revised code which were then reported, Madison selected for immediate consideration the one which related to religious freedom. The people of Virginia had held it under deliberation for six years, in December, 1785, it passed the House by a vote of nearly four to one. Attempts in the Senate for amendment produced only insignificant changes in the preamble, and on the sixteenth of January, 1786, Virginia placed among its statutes the very words of the original draft by Jefferson with the hope that they would endure forever: ‘No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; opinion in matters of religion shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect civil capacities. The rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind.” 8Hening, vii, 86.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.2

    “‘Thus,’ says Madison, ‘in Virginia was extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind.’”AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.3

    It will be observed that the opposition to the proposed legislation for the support of teachers of the Christian religion was not from an infidel but from a Christian standpoint. Madison was himself “bred in the school of the Presbyterian dissenters under Witherspoon at Princeton,” 9Bancroft, Vol. IV, p. 417. and the Virginia Presbyterians and Baptists of that day were certainly not open to the charge of hostility to Christianity. The fight against the bill, supposed to be for the preservation of Christianity, was made wholly in the interests of Christianity and of God-given rights.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.4

    Mr. Madison’s first reason for opposing the bill was because “religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.5

    His second reason was, “Because, if religion be exempt from the authority of the society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the legislative body,” whose jurisdiction, he argued, was both derivative and limited.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.6

    Mr. Madison’s third reason for opposing religious legislation in Virginia in 1785 is just as applicable to the legislation proposed now. “Who does not see,” he asks, “that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians?”AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.7

    Equally pertinent would be the question now: Who does not see that the same authority that can require the observance of one Christian institution, may establish with the same ease any other real or supposed Christian institution and require its observance? There can be but one reason for hedging the Sunday about with legal restrictions and prohibitions, namely, its supposed sacred character; and who does not see that it would be just as legitimate for the legislature to guard or enforce in like manner any other institution of the Church?AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.8

    Again, Mr. Madison, and those who joined with him in this memorial, objected to the “bill establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian religion” on the ground that it violated “that equality which ought to be the basis of every law.” This is equally true of the present bill. It violates equality because it requires in some degree the observance of a religious institution. Said Mr. Madison: “Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.” The present Sunday bill, like all such measures, takes no account of the right of every man not to observe Sunday.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.9

    Again, as pointed out in the fifth division of Mr. Madison’s memorial, the bill now before the Virginia Legislature, equally with the bill then under consideration, implies the right to employ religion as an engine of civil policy; and also to use the civil power to support and enforce religion.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.10

    As it is religious sentiment which demands such legislation as that now proposed in Virginia, so it is religious sentiment which enforces such legislation. In fact, by such laws the State simply clothes the Church with civil power, and within certain proscribed limits, makes it the “duty” of the magistrate to adjudicate religious questions and enforce religious discipline. And this is equally true of the Sunday “laws” already upon the statute books of Virginia. Section 3800 provides that:—AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.11

    The forfeiture declared by the preceding section shall not be incurred by any person who conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as a Sabbath, and actually refrains from all secular business and labor on that day, provided he does not compel an apprentice or servant not of his belief to do secular work or business on a Sunday, and does not on that day disturb any other person.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.12

    Such an exemption is itself evidence of the religious character of the “law.” Thus even the attempts of legislators to do justice and to recognize the right of every citizen to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, show such legislation to be alike in flagrant violation of the Virginia Bill of Rights, of the “Act Establishing Religious Liberty,” and of the natural rights of man.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.13

    It is to be hoped, therefore, that the Legislature of Virginia will not only reject this present Sunday bill, but will make haste to repeal the various measures of religious legislation now upon the statute books of that State, and thus vindicate the principles so ably announced and defended over a century ago by Jefferson and Madison, the ablest statesmen of that day, and by Witherspoon, the Christian minister, educator, and patriot.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.14

    “Religious ‘Laws’” American Sentinel 11, 7, p. 50.

    ATJ

    THERE is nothing more unchristian than a man-made religious “law.”AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.1

    Religious legislation is solely a prerogative of the Creator. When man presumes to enact such legislation he assumes to put himself in the place of God. His religious legislation, so far from being Christian, becomes from its very assumption to be such, actual blasphemy.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.2

    “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:5, 6. Religious legislation presumes to add to the words of God.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.3

    Every word of God is law. It is law because it is right, because it is truth, because it is just, and because it will certainly be carried into effect. And therefore any religious legislation by man becomes but a man-made addition to the word of God, and subjects its authors to the reproof of the Almighty, which will demonstrate them to be liars, and appoint their portion with the lovers of untruth.AMS February 13, 1896, page 50.4

    “Maryland History and Roman Catholic Claims” American Sentinel 11, 7, pp. 51, 52.

    ATJ

    CECIL CALVERT, the second Lord Baltimore and lord proprietary of Maryland, was a Roman Catholic, and for this reason Roman Catholics take great credit to themselves for what they call “the establishment of religious liberty in Maryland.” The Monitor, of San Francisco, in its issue of Junuary [sic.] 18, says:—AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.1

    We were always inclined to believe that the early history of Catholic Maryland offers at the same time the most magnanimous example of Catholic tolerance and liberality and the most ungrateful specimen of anti-Catholic bigotry. It will be remembered that when Calvert founded Maryland he threw open the colony to every sect and creed. The Puritan who fled from Virginian persecution found a welcome and secure home under the persecuted Baltimore. But when the royal house in England fell before the Covenanters the Puritans whom Calvert had sheltered turned on their host and established the reign of religious intolerance in his free colony. Baltimore reëstablished his authority and his first deed—the most glorious in our history—was to pass the famous act of religious toleration.AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.2

    The fact is, as we have repeatedly shown, that the circumstances were such that Lord Baltimore could not do otherwise than to grant a good degree of religious toleration in his colony. England was at that time “Protestant” and Maryland was not settled by Roman Catholics but very largely by Protestants.AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.3

    Of the landing of the first emigrants Bancroft says:—AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.4

    Upon the 27th [of March, 1634], the emigrants, of whom at least three parts of four were Protestants, took quiet possession of the land which the governor had bought. 1“History of the United States,” Vol. I, Part I, chap. 10, p. 161.AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.5

    It is probable that the relative proportion of Catholics and Protestants in Maryland remained about the same, and though the government was in the hands of the lord proprietary, who was a Catholic, it would have been quite impossible for him, even had he desire to do so, to have denied toleration to so large a majority of his subjects.AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.6

    Again Bancroft says:—AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.7

    In the mixed population of Maryland, where the administration was in the hands of Catholics, and the great majority of the people were Protestants, there was no unanimity of sentiment out of which a domestic constitution could have harmoniously risen. 2Id., page 166.AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.8

    This was about the time of the conflict in England between the Parliament and Charles I., and Lord Baltimore had to look well to his rights in order to retain any authority at all. Leonard Calvert, the proprietary’s deputy, went to England in 1643 to consult with his brother, Lord Baltimore, about affairs of the colony. Claybourne was claiming Kent Island, and the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Puritans, who formed a large proportion of Lord Baltimore’s subjects, were restless under the authority of a Catholic, and were desirous of establishing Protestantism, so-called, as the religion of the colony.AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.9

    In 1645, a petition was presented to the House of Lords, asking that the government of Maryland might be settled in the hands of Protestants. For some reason this petition was not acted upon, and “the politic Lord Baltimore,” says Bancroft, “had ample time to prepare his own remedies. Toappease Parliament, he removed Greene [the Roman Catholic Governor], and in August, 1648, appointed in his place Wm. Stone, a Protestant of the Church of England.” 3Id., page 167.AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.10

    It was in April of the following year that the act establishing religious toleration, was passed. Bancroft says: “To quiet and unite the colony, all the offenses of the late rebellion were effaced by a general amnesty; and, at the instance of the Catholic proprietary, the Protestant governor, Stone, and his council of six, composed equally of Catholics and Protestants, and the representatives of the people of Maryland, of whom [only] five were Catholics, at a general session of the assembly held in April, 1649, placed upon their statute books” 4Id., page 168. this act of toleration.AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.11

    We do not deny that Lord Baltimore was a liberal minded man, or that he entertained charitable feelings toward Protestants. But even had such not been the case, his environment and the circumstances under which he received and held his charter were such that he could not well have taken any other course than that which he did take in granting to his subjects religious toleration. England was “Protestant” and the charter granted Lord Baltimore by Charles I., established in effect the Anglican Church as the church of Maryland. It gave the lord proprietary authority to found “churches and chapels, and places of worship in convenient and suitable places within the premises; and of causing the same to be dedicated and consecrated, according to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England.” 5“‘Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the United States,” compiled under the order of the United States Senate, by Ben: Perley Poore, p. 812.AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.12

    It will be seen at once that it was quite out of the question for Lord Baltimore to establish the Catholic religion in Maryland; he did the only thing that was possible for him to do under the circumstances to secure even toleration for those of his own faith: he established religious toleration for all who professed faith in Christ; and the fact that representative Catholics appeals to the history of Maryland, in proof of the tolerant spirit of Catholicism, demonstrates the paucity of such evidence. That State seems to be the only spot of earth upon which Roman Catholics can base any plausible claim to having established religious freedom; and as we have seen, the facts of history do not bear out that claim even in this single instance. That a degree of religious toleration was established in Maryland was due not to the liberality of Rome but a combination of circumstances which Rome was not able to control.AMS February 13, 1896, page 51.13

    (For a more exhaustive examination of this subject see the AMERICAN SENTINEL of Sept. 26, 1895.)AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.1

    “Governmental Accountability” American Sentinel 11, 7, p. 52.

    ATJ

    WE take the following words from the Christian Statesman of January 25:—AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.1

    The duty of serving the Lord is binding equally everywhere. Can it be that God has bound men by moral law every place but one? Can it be that he has left the great organization of government with its tremendous power and possibilities for both good and evil, unaccountable, without moral and organic power for its control? This is true if the folly of modern State philosophy be true, that religion has nothing to do with politics.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.2

    The above is part of an address delivered before the “National Christian Congress,” at Atlanta, Georgia, Dec. 19, 1895, by Rev. C. N. Donaldson. We respectfully take issue with the latter concerning what he affirms must be true from the standpoint of separation between religion and politics.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.3

    By the statement that religion and politics should not be mixed, it is not meant that politics should be conducted in an anti-religious or unrighteous manner, but that religious doctrines and institutions lie without the sphere of politics, and hence cannot properly ask for or be given political recognition.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.4

    The distinction between the two is simply this: The sphere of religion covers all thought and action pertaining to an individual’s duty toward God, and of necessity entirely excludes all human action in a representative capacity. The sphere of politics, on the other hand, relates only to the protection of individuals in the enjoyment of their rights, and is inseparable from that action in representative capacity which religion excludes.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.5

    There is a Christian principle, indeed, which should govern men in political action as in everything else; but that principle does not require that religious dogmas and institutions should have the support of the civil power. On the contrary, it requires the very opposite, since to give religion such “support” would be contrary to justice and a denial of the power and authority of God.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.6

    Christian principle in politics requires that an individual should act honestly and fairly to the best of his ability in making secure to all persons within the range of his action, those inalienable rights with which all have been endowed by their Creator. And as these include the right of an individual to think for himself and to act in harmony with his convictions of right and duty—so long as he invades no other person’s rights,—it is clear that religious legislation can have no support from the person who is governed by Christian principle in his political action.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.7

    Christianity means freedom—freedom to all persons to enjoy every God-given right and privilege, even those from which men have cut themselves off by sin. Christianity—the gospel—is the world’s great proclamation of emancipation; and those who would in its name restrict their fellowmen by putting their own religious ideas into the civil law, and enforcing them by the civil power, show themselves to be deplorably ignorant of what Christianity is.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.8

    “Purifying the Fountain” American Sentinel 11, 7, pp. 52, 53.

    ATJ

    IN a discussion of “The People’s Responsibility for the ‘Christian’ Amendment,” in the Christian Statesman, of January 25, Rev. J. S. Martin declares that “our only security against the destruction threatened by the great flood tide of governmental evils that are coming in upon us, lies in the purification of the fountain whence they flow.”AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.1

    It is very true that a stream cannot be purified without purifying its fountain head. But how is the fountain head of governmental corruption to be purified? Is it by a “Christian” amendment to the Constitution? We trow not.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.2

    We are not prepared to impeach any person in office under this Government, high or low, on a charge of official corruption. That is not the business or purpose of the SENTINEL. Our aim is to point out the truth that any attempt to remedy governmental evils by so-called Christian legislation, either through a “Christian” amendment to the Constitution or in any other way can only make the trouble incalculably worse than it is.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.3

    The fountain head of all corruption in this world is the human heart. Well has the prophet said, “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.” No man knows the depravity that is lurking in his own heart. Much less, then, is he able to guard against it by human enactments. There is just one way in which the heart of an individual can cease to be deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, and that is by the exercise of the power of God.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.4

    The action proposed by the Rev. Mr. Martin would not reach the fountain head of the difficulty at all. The scheme to Christianize the Constitution is in the highest degree absurd and impotent for the purpose at which it aims. Man cannot Christianize himself; how much less, then, can he impart Christianity to anything. He can make the laws over which he has control, just; and that is all that can be asked for any law. Justice is law, and justice is all of Christianity that can pertain to any law of man. A human statute is valuable just in proportion to its approximation to the unwritten law of justice. The true science of legislation is to discover and apply this law.AMS February 13, 1896, page 52.5

    While a correct form of government is essential, it is also true that this would avail but little without respect for right and justice in the hearts of the citizens under it. As surely as this respect is lessened and the hold of depravity strengthened in the hearts of men, in public or private life, so surely will affairs under this Government go on from bad to worse, without regard to the “Christian Amendment” which some are seeking to incorporate into the Constitution.AMS February 13, 1896, page 53.1

    “Back Page” American Sentinel 11, 7, p. 56.

    ATJ

    THE “National Reform” doctrine of governmental accountability to the moral law, could it be carried into effect, would be but a scheme to rob justice of its due and thwart the decrees of God. For God’s plan of moral government for the world is based upon individual accountability, and that only, as is seen from the fact that there is no other salvation offered than individual salvation. The Word of God nowhere intimates any purpose on his part to save an earthly government. But it does plainly state that in the final day he will reward every person according to his deeds; and if some individuals could have the responsibility for some of their deeds shifted from their shoulders to the “government,” on the ground of having performed them in the capacity of government officials, they would go free, while it would remain for God to deal with the intangible specter of civil government, apart from his dealings with mankind as individuals. It must be obvious to every intelligent, unbiased mind that after individual accountability has been reckoned with at the bar of final judgment, there will be no accountability left to be considered. Individuals may delude themselves with ideas of governmental responsibility, but they cannot deceive God nor cheat justice of the smallest fraction of its rightful due.AMS February 13, 1896, page 56.1

    A SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST missionary in Russia writes to the Present Truth, of London, saying:—AMS February 13, 1896, page 56.2

    One of our German churches in the South, of some forty members, has of late been forbidden to assemble on the Sabbath. As they persisted, the whole church was imprisoned twice, twenty-four hours each time, and then they have four times been fined fifty cents (2s.) each, and threatened that in case they do not pay their fine, everything they have will be sold; but their trust is in the Lord.AMS February 13, 1896, page 56.3

    This is only the logical outcome of State regulation of sabbath observance. One reason why Sunday work by Sabbatarians is objected to in various places is, that it is “of pernicious example,” “immoral,” etc. It was said in Western Tennessee, “We are not going to have you Adventists teaching our children, by your example, that Sunday is not the Sabbath, and that Saturday is.” The observance of the day as sacred to rest and worship certainly teaches that it is the Sabbath; hence, if government prohibits Sunday work because of its testimony against Sunday sacredness, it is only logical that it shall also forbid Sabbath rest.AMS February 13, 1896, page 56.4

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents