THE NATIONAL SUNDAY-LAW BILL

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—First, I wish to apologize to Dr. Gregg for the Boston Herald. The Herald pretended to give a report of my speech last Wednesday night. You remember I read Dr. Gregg’s statement that “the civil power has the right to command the consciences of men.” The Herald made it appear that I quoted Dr. Gregg as committing himself to the doctrine of “centralization of power.” These two statements which I made were almost as far from each other as the end of my address was from the beginning.TTL 8.4

If the Herald has reporters who cannot report, it ought to get some who can. If it has reporters who can report, and the Herald can only garble and misrepresent them, then that is the misfortune of the reporter and the fault of the Herald. We went to the Herald editorial rooms no less than three times, to get a report inserted. We offered to write it ourselves; but we could not get a word but this piece of misrepresentation. I noticed, however, that last Sunday morning the Herald devoted two whole columns of solid matter to a glorification of the Catholic Church and the blessings of membership in it. These facts make it quite clear that the Boston Herald is more in favor of the Catholic Church and membership in it, than it is in favor of the American Constitution and the liberties of men under it. But, of course, the Herald has the right to be so, if it chooses.TTL 8.5

I suppose the friends here who heard the other two addresses will have discovered by this time that it is not religious legislation by any one religious party that I am opposed to, but religious legislation of any kind, by any party, sect, or church. A total separation between religion and civil legislation is the principle upon which we stand. It is not against any denomination or church that these speeches are made, but against religious legislation by any church whether Protestant, or Catholic, or both together.TTL 8.6

In the Senate of the United States the following bill has been introduced:—TTL 8.7

50 Congress, 2nd Session, S. 2983.TTL 8.8

A Bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the First Day of the Week Commonly known as the Lord’s Day, as a day of Rest, and to Promote its Observance as a Day of Religious Worship.TTL 8.9

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no person or corporation, or agent, servant, or employee of any person or corporation, or in the service of the United States in time of peace, except in the necessary enforcement of the laws, shall perform, or authorize to be performed, any secular work, labor, or business to the disturbance of others, works of necessity and mercy and humanity excepted; nor shall any person engage in any play, game, or amusement, or recreation to the disturbance of others on the first day of the week, common known as Sunday, or during any part thereof, in any Territory, district, vessel, or place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States; nor shall it be lawful for any person or corporation to receive pay for labor or service performed or rendered in violation of this section.TTL 8.10

SECTION 2. That no mails or mail matter shall hereafter be transported in time of peace over any land postal route, nor shall any mail matter be collected, assorted, handled, or delivered during any part of the first day of the week: PROVIDED, That whenever any letter shall relate to a work of necessity or mercy, or shall concern the health, life, or decease of any person, and the fact shall be plainly stated upon the face of the envelope containing the same, the Post-master-General shall provide for the transportation of such letter or letters in packages separate from other mail matter and shall make regulations for delivery thereof, the same having been received at its place of destination before the said first day of the week, during such limited portion of the day as shall best suit the public convenience and least interfere with the due observance of the day as one of worship and rest: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That when there shall have been an interruption in the due and regular transmission of the mails it shall be lawful to so far examine the same when delivered as to ascertain if there be such matter therein for lawful delivery on the first day of the week.TTL 8.11

SECTION 3. That the prosecution of commerce between the States and with the Indian tribes, the same not being work of necessity, mercy, or humanity, by the transportation of persons or property by land or water in such way as to interfere with or disturb the people in the enjoyment of the first day of the week, or any portion thereof, as a day of rest from labor, the same not being labor of necessity, mercy, or humanity, or its observance as a day of religious worship, is hereby prohibited, and any person or corporation, or the agent, servant, or employee of any person or corporation who shall willfully violate this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than one thousand dollars, and no service performed in the prosecution of such prohibited commerce shall be lawful, nor shall any compensation be recoverable or be paid for the same.TTL 8.12

SECTION 4. That all military and naval drills, musters, and parades, not in the time of active service or immediate preparation therefore, of soldiers, sailors, marines, or cadets of the United States on the first day of the week, except assemblies for the due and orderly observance of religious worship, are hereby prohibited, nor shall any unnecessary labor be performed or permitted in the military or naval service of the United States on the first day of the week.TTL 8.13

SECTION 5. That it shall be unlawful to pay or to receive payment or wages in any manner for service rendered or for labor performed or for the transportation of persons or of property in violation of the provisions of this act, nor shall any action lie for the recovery thereof, and when so paid, whether in advance or otherwise, the same may be recovered back by whoever shall first sue for the same.TTL 8.14

SECTION 6. That labor or service performed and rendered on the first day of the week in consequence of accident, disaster, or unavoidable delays in making the regular connections upon postal-routes and routes of travel and transportation, the preservation of perishable and exposed property, and the regular and necessary transportation and delivery of articles of food in condition for healthy use, and such transportation for short distances from one state, district, or territory into another state, district, or territory, as by local laws shall be declared to be necessary for the public good, shall not be deemed violations of this act, but the same shall be construed, so far as possible, to secure to the whole people rest from toil during the first day of the week, their mental and moral culture, and the religious observance of the Sabbath day.TTL 8.15

The object of this Bill is to secure to the public, rest from toil during the first day of the week, mental and moral culture, and the religious observance of Sunday. That is, it provides for religious legislation. Its object is to protect the observance of Sunday as a day of religious worship. If Congress can legislate to that extent on religious subjects, it can legislate to any extent.TTL 8.16

The Bill, in the first place, is unconstitutional; not only because the first amendment to the Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” but if that amendment were not there, Congress would have no power to legislate upon any such question. All the powers of Congress are delegated powers. Article X. in amendments to the Constitution states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”TTL 8.17

The people have not delegated to Congress the power to legislate upon religious questions. Congress has no power in itself; the states have, unless forbidden by their own constitutions. As the people have not given to Congress the power of religious legislation, this bill of Mr. Blair’s is unconstitutional, and consequently un-Christian; for, as we have proved, the Constitution of our country is founded upon the principles laid down by Christ; viz., the separation of religion from legislative power.TTL 9.1

A gentleman in the hall below asked me if government should not be founded upon Christian principles. I answered him that it ought, most assuredly, and those are just the principles upon which our government is founded. Christ said: “Render therefore to Cesar that which is Cesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.” And when the State attempts to legislate upon things pertaining to God, it is acting in an anti-Christian manner. The Blair Bill then is unconstitutional and anti-Christian.TTL 9.2

Let us read Section 1 again, and then put Section 5 with it.TTL 9.3

SECTION 1. That no person or corporation, or agent, servant, or employee of any person or corporation, or in the service of the United States in time of peace, except in the necessary enforcement of the laws, shall perform, or authorize to be performed, any secular work, labor, or business to the disturbance of others, works of necessity and mercy and humanity excepted; nor shall any person engage in any play, game, or amusement, or recreation to the disturbance of others on the first day of the week, common known as Sunday, or during any part thereof, in any Territory, district, vessel, or place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States; nor shall it be lawful for any person or corporation to receive pay for labor or service performed or rendered in violation of this section.TTL 9.4

SECTION 5. That it shall be unlawful to pay or to receive payment or wages in any manner for service rendered or for labor performed or for the transportation of persons or of property in violation of the provisions of this act, nor shall any action lie for the recovery thereof, and when so paid, whether in advance or otherwise, the same may be recovered back by whoever shall first sue for the same.TTL 9.5

Do you see what is in that? If you work for me on Sunday, and I pay you for it, whether at the time, or six months after, the first man that finds it out can sue you and get the money, no matter if he lives on the other side of the continent. That is the kind of legislation that is now pending in the United States Senate! It seems to me that when men who are sent to the United States Senate to guard the interests of the people, and maintain their liberties and rights, spend their time in such stuff as this, that it is time the people were opening their eyes to see who they are sending. This should somewhat concern the people of New Hampshire.TTL 9.6

Do not misunderstand me here. This bill can not affect the people of Massachusetts, only in this way: the influence of such a thing being national; and the people who have the power of making it national, have also the power of making it local. If that bill be allowed to pass, the influence of it will soon spread to all the States; and we will then have a national religion anyhow.TTL 9.7

Again: this bill proposes to promote the observance of the Lord’s day, or Sabbath, as a day of religious worship. Let us ask the question in another form which was asked the Saviour in his day. They asked him whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Cesar or not. He said, Show me the tribute money. They did so. Then, said Jesus, Whose image and superscription is this? and they answered him, Cesar’s. Then said he unto them, Render, therefore, unto Cesar, that which is Cesar’s, and unto God, that which is God’s. Christ virtually told them, You have said that it belonged to Cesar, therefore render it to him.TTL 9.8

The question now is, Is it lawful to render Sabbath observance to Cesar? And every citizen has a right to ask it. Well, what says the Saviour?—Show me the Sabbath. Whose is this image and superscription? You all know it is “the Sabbath or the Lord thy God.” It is the Lord’s day, as Senator Blair’s Bill itself says. Then render to God that which is God’s, and to Cesar that which is Cesar’s. (Applause.) It is just as certainly true as that the Saviour’s words are true; and being true, no civil power has any right to enforce the observance of a Sabbath, and no Sabbath law ever made was Christian. It is Cesar interfering with that which pertains to God, and demanding of men that they render to him that which belongs only to God. It is the usurping of God’s power by the civil government. Then the Sabbath bears the image and superscription of God, and not of Cesar, it never can pertain to Cesar, and is never to be rendered to Cesar. Suppose a man does not, and will not, keep the Sabbath. God has commanded it to be kept. Then suppose the civil government compel him to keep it. Is that rendering it to God or to the civil government?—To the civil government, of course. Then the civil government is in the place of God. But that never can be right. Consequently Senator Blair’s Sunday Bill is contrary to the principles of Jesus Christ, and is anti-Christian.TTL 9.9

There is another clause of this bill which I will notice here. It is the first section, and reads:—TTL 9.10

“Now shall any person engage in any play, game, amusement, or recreation to the disturbance of others, on the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, etc.”TTL 9.11

That leaves it entirely with the other man to say whether what you do disturbes [sic.] him or not. If he has a spite against you, if he envies you, or if he is jealous of you in any way, then it will take a very slight thing to disturb him; especially if it is done by you. Any innocent game or recreation has a tendency to annoy your envious neighbor, and he may have you arrested. All he has to do is simply to say that it disturbs him; and to jail you go, or pay your fine of not less than ten dollars and not more than one thousand.TTL 9.12

More than this, some people have very strict ideas in regard to just what is proper recreation for the Sabbath day. One of their leading men says that “Nothing is proper recreation for the Sabbath outside of the home or sanctuary.” Then, if on Sunday you are not found in one of these two places, you may be fined anywhere from ten to one thousand dollars. (It’s all a humbug: from the gallery.) A humbug! It’s worse. It’s wickedness. A humbug is something harmless. This is not harmless.TTL 9.13

In San Francisco, about a year ago, there was an ordinance identical with this in principle. I will read it:—TTL 9.14

“No person shall in any place indulge in conduct having a tendency to annoy persons passing, or being upon, the public highway or upon adjacent premises.”TTL 9.15

Senator Blair’s Bill says that you shall indulge in nothing at all on Sunday to the disturbance of others. A man was standing on the sidewalk in San Francisco distributing circulars. It had a tendency to annoy some one; and the man was arrested. He applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the offence charged against him did not constitute a crime, and that the ordinance making such action an offence was invalid and void, because it was unreasonable and uncertain. The report of the case says, “The writ was made returnable before judge Sullivan, and argued before Henry Hulton in behalf of the imprisoned offender.” Disposing of the case, the judge gave quite a lengthy written opinion, in which he passed a somewhat severe criticism upon the absurdity of the contested ordinance, and discharged the prisoner. The judge said:—TTL 9.16

“If the order be law, forcible by fine and imprisonment, it is a crime to indulge in any conduct, however innocent and harmless in itself, and however unconsciously done, which has a tendency to annoy other persons.... He who has been foiled in an attempted wrong upon the person or property of another, finds a tendency to annoy in the very passing presence of him whose honesty or integrity has circumvented him. And so instances might be multiplied indefinitely, in which the most harmless and inoffensive conduct has a tendency to annoy others. If the language of the ordinance defines a criminal offence, it sets a very severe penalty of life and property upon conduct lacking in the essential element of criminality.TTL 9.17

“But it may be said that courts and juries will not use the instrumentality of this language to set a seal of condemnation upon unoffending citizens, and to unjustly deprive them of their liberties, and brand them as criminals. The law countenances no such dangerous doctrine, countenances no principle so subversive of liberty as that the life or liberty of a subject should be made to depend upon the whim or caprice of judge or jury, by exercising a discretion in determining that certain conduct does or does not come within the inhibition of criminal action. The law should be engraved so plainly and distinctly on the legislative tables that it can be discerned alike by all subjects of the commonwealth, whether judge upon the bench, jury in the box, or prisoner at the bar. Any condition of the law which allows the test of criminality to depend on the whim or caprice of judge or juror savors of tyranny. The language employed is broad enough to cover conduct which is clearly within the constitutional rights of the citizen. It designates no border-line which divides the criminal from the non-criminal conduct. Its terms are too vague and uncertain to lay down a rule of conduct. In my judgment the portion of the ordinance here involved is uncertain and unreasonable.”TTL 9.18

This is a dangerous doctrine. It is subversive of liberty. And the language and doctrine of the Blair Bill is no less dangerous or subversive of liberty. Religious legislation always runs into persecution. The Blair Bill is uncertain and unreasonable, and savors all over of tyranny. “Any condition of law which allows the test of criminality to depend upon the whim or caprice of judge or juror savors of tyranny.” That is what the Blair Bill is. Then we have found that that bill is unconstitutional, anti-Christian, embodies dangerous doctrine, is subversive of liberty, and savors of tyranny. If you want that kind of doctrine carried into effect, sign the petitions so zealously circulated in favor of the Blair Bill. If you do not, give them the wide berth that belongs to them.TTL 10.1

Any bill that embodies such doctrines is in the direct line of religious despotism. Now I want to prove that that is what it is. It is the same sort of a movement that had in the fourth century. I will read some extracts from history on that subject. A union of Church and State was formed, out of which came the Papacy. I want you to see what the theory was then upon which a union of Church and State was based. I want you to see also how the Church secured control of the civil power, and compelled people who did not belong to the church to act as though they did. I read from Torrey’s translation of Neander, edition of 1852. You will find that Houghton and Mifflin’s edition has been doctored considerably. By comparing their edition with this, you will see that some important statements are left out, and some are put in. Neander says:—TTL 10.2

“There had in fact arisen in the church a false theocratical theory, originating not in the essence of the gospel, but in the confusion of the religious constitutions of the Old and New Testaments, which brought along with it an un-Christian opposition of the spiritual to the secular power, and which might easily result in the formation of a sacerdotal state, subordinating the secular to itself in a false and outward way.”TTL 10.3

There was a theocracy once in the world, and God made it himself, and he himself was king over it. He made known his will through the prophets. It was a union of Church and State,—a government of God; but when the Saviour came, it ceased. That nation is no more. “Thus saith the Lord God, Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is: and I will give it him.”—Ezekiel 21:26, 27. You well know whose right it is to sit upon the throne of David. It is Jesus Christ’s. When it was announced that he was to be born, they called his name Jesus, and the throne of his father David was to be given to him. But when the Saviour came, he did not receive that throne; so it must be at the end of the world that he receives it. Therefore a theocracy established between the death of Christ and the end of the world would be a false theocracy.TTL 10.4

I want to show you now what there is in a false theocracy. The Papacy is in it! A theocracy is a government of God. If you have an earthly form of a theocracy, whoever sits at the head of it is in the place of God, and sits there as the representative of God. And that is a pope. Then the first step in the logic of a man-made theocracy is a pope.TTL 10.5

The second step is in the infallibility of that pope; he sits at the head of that government in the place of God. But when you put a man in the place of God, you clothe the corrupt passions of apostate humanity with divine power, and divine attributes. Most of the time he will act just like apostate humanity, and some of the time he is in danger of acting like the devil. If he acts wickedly while sitting in the place of God, that would seem to show that he was not the representative of God; so to make his way consistent, he must be infallible. The inconsistency is not in the claim, but in the theory that makes such a claim necessary. You know that is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The Ecumenical Council declared that when the Pope speaks excathedra in matters of faith, he is infallible. What does excathedra man?—From the throne. Then when the Pope is in bed, he is not infallible. When he is out walking in his garden, he is not infallible; but when he takes his seat upon the Papal throne, then he is sitting in the seat of God, then he is speaking as the representative of God, then he is infallible. If you allow the theory, you must admit the conclusion. (We don’t believe him, all the same.) Glad you don’t. The claims of the Papacy, however, are not at all extravagant if the theocratical theory be correct.TTL 10.6

The third step in this logic is the Inquisition to make the infallibility effective; and that is just as easily proved. The government of God is a moral government. The moral law is the rule of his government; and moral rules pertain to the heart,—the thoughts and intents of the heart. Consequently a theocratical government must have to do with the secrets of men’s hearts, and the only way a human government can do that is through the tribunals of the Inquisition. Now we have the three steps in a theocratical theory of government: first, the Pope; secondly, the infallibility; and thirdly, the Inquisition to make the infallibility effective. You cannot escape the logic of it if you accept the theory.TTL 10.7

It is not the peculiar people of which the Catholic Church is composed that make it what it is; but in the theory that underlies it the wickedness lies. If Protestants take the same steps, then you have a Protestant pope. Catholics are no worse than other people would be in their place. Then we should not condemn them when we favor the same principles in others. Let us say again that any man has just as much right to be a Catholic as any other man has to be a Protestant. That is certain. Catholics can be good citizens. But a Catholic has no right to seize upon the civil power, to make other people act as though they were Catholics; nor has any Protestant the right to compel Catholics to act as though they were Protestants. What we want is American principles, and the rights of men under the Constitution as it is,—as Jesus himself gave them. But the theocratical theory of government is becoming very popular in the United States; and I repeat, the claims of the Papacy are not extravagant when you admit the theocratical theory. Think of this. And you will have need to think of it too.TTL 10.8

But what means did the bishops of the fourth century take to get control of the civil power? I will read from Neander, page 298. “The emperor Constantine enacted a law that on Sunday there should be a suspension of business at the courts and in other civil offices, so that the day might be devoted with less interruption to the purpose of devotion.” This law was made for the bishops: for Constantine did not care for devotion. We have also the record of the second Sunday law. “Let the judges, towns-people, and such as work at trades rest on the venerable day of the sun,” but those who live in the country, and followed the business of agriculture were to keep on at work. It was only to shut the courts, and keep the towns-people and machinery from work, that the day might be devoted to the purpose of devotion.TTL 10.9

Let us examine the character of some of those bishops who were engaged in securing this law. Eusebius was one of the best bishops of his time. At the close of the Council of Nice the emperor made a banquet; and at that banquet this good bishop exclaimed that one might easily image that the kingdom of God was come. Ten years after, the emperor made another banquet, at which Eusebius said that the palace in which the banquet was eaten was what John saw in the Revelation represented by the New Jerusalem. If he, being the best of bishops, could see the kingdom of God in one banquet, and the New Jerusalem in another, what could not the worst of them see? He also claimed that Constantine gave out his orders of battle by special divine inspiration. James of Nisibis, one of those monkish fanatics who lived on grass saw angels standing around Constantine; and Constantine, not to be outdone, saw angels standing around James. Thus they flattered one another. The bishops wanted the favors that Constantine could bestow, and Constantine wanted the support that the bishops could give him. This made the union between Church and State. This was the man who gave the first Sunday law that was ever enacted, and that allowed the country people to go on with their work. But when they had succeeded in stopping them from work, they went to theater, and the circus, and the bishop’s congregation would be rather slim. He wanted a full church. Then came a petition up from Carthage in the year 401, asking that the public shows might be transferred from Sunday and from feast days to some other days of the week.TTL 10.10

The reason given was, “The theater and circus were vastly more frequented than the church.” If both were open at the same time, the people preferred the theater to the church. They had no enough religion to do what they themselves thought to be right; consequently the civil power must take away every opportunity to do wrong. Then they would all be good Christians. Well, in a few years they got a law, so that the people would be compelled to attend to things divine and be devoted anyhow.TTL 11.1

This brings us to a striking parallel in the nineteenth century. The National Reformers’ ideal government is based on a theocratical theory. At their convention in Cincinnati in 1872, they said that this government would be as real a theocracy as the commonwealth of Israel was a theocracy. And the Women’s Christian Temperance Union has committed itself to the same purpose; for in their Monthly Reading for September, 1886, they say: “A true theocracy is yet to come; ... hence I pray devoutly as a Christian patriot for the ballot in the hands of women, and rejoice that the Nation W. C. T. U. has so long championed this cause.” Again, the National Reform Association proposes to turn this government into the kingdom of Christ; and the W. C. T. U. in the national convention of 1887 said:—TTL 11.2

“The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, local, state, national, and world wide, has one vital, organic thought, one all-absorbing purpose, one undying enthusiasm, and that is that Christ shall be this world’s king. Yea, verily, this world’s king in its realm of cause and effect, king of its courts, its camps, its commerce, king of its colleges and cloisters, king of its customs and its constitutions..... The kingdom of Christ must enter the realm of law through the gateway of politics.”TTL 11.3

Christ says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” The National Reform Association and the W. C. T. U. declare that “Christ shall be this world’s king.” I am inclined to believe the Saviour was right. (Applause.) The National Reformers, taking up the refrain of the W. C. T. U., call the Saviour “the divine politician.” Did you ever! (Laughter.) And the kingdom of Christ entering the realm of law through the gateway of politics!! Just think of the polls of Boston on election day, as a place to worship God! What conception of the salvation of Jesus Christ can such people have who call Christ a divine politician, and march people up to the polls to worship him? What is Christianity coming to when this passes for Christian doctrine?TTL 11.4

Now let me say I have no opposition to the W. C. T. U., as long as they stick to their text. (Applause.) I am free to say that outside of the church there is no organization, or ever has been, that has accomplished more good than the W. C. T. U. But let them secure Christian temperance by Christian means. But when they go off on that other issue of establishing a theocratical government, then they shall receive my uncompromising opposition. (Applause.) In that theocratical theory is embodied the principles of the Papacy. I do not care if it is advocated by the W. C. T. U.; it is the essential principle of the Papacy, and a pope is the inevitable logic of it. And we do not want any pope in this country, either male or female. (Laughter and applause.) We want American citizens to have the rights of men,—to believe as they choose, or not at all if they choose, without any disturbance by the civil law.TTL 11.5

The Third Party Prohibitionists are into it also. I will read what Sam Small wants, and he was secretary of the National Convention at Indianapolis. He says:—TTL 11.6

I want to see the day come when the Church shall be the arbiter of all legislation, State, National, and Municipal; when the great churches of the country can come together harmoniously and issue their edict, and the legislative power will respect it and enact it into laws.”TTL 11.7

What more did the Papacy ever see than that? What more could it wish to see? The Papacy did see the time when it could issue its edict, and John Huss could be burned to the stake; and Sam Small wants to see the same thing repeated here!TTL 11.8

Sam Jones is another one of the same class. I will read a passage from him: “Now I’ll tell you, I think we are running the last political combat on the lines we have been running them on. It is between the Republicans and Democrats, this contest, and it is the last the Republicans will make in America. The Democrats are going in overwhelmingly. (They didn’t.) Four years from now the Prohibition element will break the solid South. The issue then will be God or no God, drunkenness or sobriety, Sabbath or no Sabbath, heaven or hell. That will be the issue. Then we will ripe up the ground with the Democratic party, and let God rule America from that time on.” This was preached in a revival sermon. When such stuff as this gets to be revival doctrine, and the Saviour gets to be a “divine politician” what is Christianity coming to? Its time to get back to the Bible, and genuine faith in faith Christ. (Applause.)TTL 11.9

It is because they are men that we do not want them to have irresponsible power. It is not safe to trust man with divine power. That makes a pope again. We want nothing of the kind. If they get the power they will use it. If they are not going to use it, why do they want it? Why do they make such strenuous efforts to get it?TTL 11.10

What does the Prohibition party say?—They are in favor of the enforcement of the Sabbath as a civil institution. What does the commandment say? “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it civilly”?—No sir. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Holiness is not an attribute of civil government; it is the attribute of God, and it can be promoted only by God. When these men attempt to make a civil institution out of the Sabbath which the Lord himself has made holy, they are perverting the ordinance of God, and putting themselves in the place of God.TTL 11.11

There is an exemption clause in one of their would-be laws to the effect that those who keep another day as the Sabbath shall not be oppressed. But why do they wish to oppress the man who does not observe any day of the week? An open letter was written to some who keep the seventh day stating that if they would help in securing a Sunday law, they would have an exemption clause for them. This was the reply: “We will not help you put upon others what we do not want upon ourselves.” They said they believed in the golden rule, Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them, and not in the National Reform W. C. T. U. rendition of it, Whatsoever ye would not that men should do unto you, do that to them. (Laughter.)TTL 11.12

A little over a year ago there was held in Elgin, Ill., a Sunday law convention. The first resolution passed was this:—TTL 11.13

“RESOLVED, That we recognize the Sabbath as an institution of God, revealed in nature and the Bible, and of perpetual obligation on all men; and also as a civil and American institution, bound up in vital and historical connection with the organ and foundation of our Government, the growth of our polity, and necessary to be maintained in order for the preservation and integrity of our national system, and therefore as having a sacred claim on all patriotic American citizens.”TTL 11.14

Let us read the commandment: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it civilly. The first day of the week is the American Sabbath, and you shall keep it civilly, because in six days the Americans made the heavens and the earth, and on the first day they rested. Wherefore they blessed the Sabbath day and civilized it.” “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” is what the commandment says, and he is the One to whom it belongs, not the Americans. Again I read:—TTL 11.15

“RESOLVED, That we look with shame and sorrow on the non-observance of the Sabbath by many Christian people, in that the custom prevails with them of purchasing Sabbath newspapers engaging in and patronizing Sabbath business and travel, and in many instances giving themselves to pleasure and self-indulgence, setting aside by neglect and indifference the great duties and privileges which God’s day brings them.”TTL 11.16

Well they ought to be ashamed of it. But how do they do about to rectify the matter? Do they resolve to preach the gospel better? to be more faithful themselves in bringing up the consciences of the people?—Not much. They do this:—TTL 12.1

“RESOVLED, That we give our votes and support to those candidates or political officers who will pledge themselves to vote for the enactment and enforcing of statutes in favor of the civil Sabbath.”TTL 12.2

They are so sorry that Christians will not act like Christians; they want a law to compel other people to act as though they were Christians. That is what they want, and that is what we don’t want them to get. (Applause.) If you think that when they get it, they will not use it the same as they did in the fourth century, then you must think human nature has changed wonderfully. Religious bigots are the same in every age of the world and bigotry knows no centuries. (Applause.)TTL 12.3

Dr. Herrick Johnson gave a perfect Philippic against Sunday newspapers at Chicago, the 21st of last November, and in comparing them with the saloon, he said that the saloon could not come into our homes, but the Sunday newspapers can be put in the pocket and carried right into our parlors. It seems to me that if he should put the saloon into his pocket, he could take that into his parlor too. I wonder how the paper could get into his pocket if he did not put it there.TTL 12.4

Then, too, they have joined hands with the Catholic Church. Dr. Crafts received a letter from Cardinal Gibbons endorcing [sic.] the Blair Sunday Bill for the compulsory observance of the Christian Sabbath. Of course the Cardinal will joins hand with them. He knows what they did with the same thing in the fourth century. And he says, “I am happy to add my name to the petition in favor of the law.” People will talk about danger from the Catholic Church; but there is no danger if Protestants will attend to Protestant business. (Applause.) The only danger is from miscalled Protestants joining hands with the Catholic Church. (Applause.)TTL 12.5

Senator Blair’s Amendment and Sunday Bill is in direct conformity to the command of Leo XIII. This common interest makes it necessary that they they [sic.] seek the aid of the Catholic Church, as they themselves say, “In any way that she may choose to show it.” People calling themselves Protestants appealing for aid to this mother of harlots and abomination of the earth! The time has come when there should be some Protestants protesting against that kind of Protestantism. When they got the Cardinal’s name they added with it 7,200,000 Catholics or all the Catholics in the United States. He did not tell them to do that, or that his name was equivalent to the names of 7,200,001. But they did it. Is it exactly according to Protestant Christian principle, or American Constitutional principles that one man shall be allowed to absorb into himself 7,200,000 others? That looks like centralization of power with a vengeance. If they act like that to get power, what will they not do when they get it? Dr. Crafts went down to an assembly of the Knights of Labor in Indianapolis and got about two hundred and forty of their representatives to endorse his petition, by trading off with them and agreeing to help them secure what they desired. And from these two hundred and forty names he reckons 240,000 Knights of Labor as signers of his petition.TTL 12.6

The signing of the petition by churches is done in a similar manner. We will suppose a church has a membership of five hundred, and three hundred of them are present when the petition is presented. All those who favor the petition are asked to rise. Perhaps two hundred of those present do so. Then the whole membership of five hundred are reckoned as signers. That is the way they did it in California. There are on that petition the names of individuals who never heard it read, and know nothing about what it contains, in fact do not know their names are there. I know of Catholic priests who have signed a remonstrance against it, and say they do not want a union of Church and State.TTL 12.7

A preacher in California said to the State, “You relegate moral instruction to the church and allow everybody to go as they please on Sunday, so we cannot get at them.” My friends, it is time Christians began to talk less about legislation, and get back to the plain, simple truths of the Bible. There is a void in every soul that nothing can fill but the gospel of Jesus Christ. Oh, that men would preach the gospel with power Christ has given! Then they could get at the people. But they cannot get at them with their preaching, hence they want the civil power to corral them so they can get at them anyhow. Just as soon as they lose the power of the Holy Spirit, then they want to enlist the civil power. This reaching of the church for civil power is nothing but wickedness. It ought to be opposed and exposed upon the very first appearance of it. While they were simply discussing it, I staid at home; but when they proposed an Amendment to the Constitution taking away the liberties of the American people and establishing a government here on the principles of the Papacy, then I felt it was time to take the field, and stay at home no longer. (Continued Applause.) And we want to see ten thousand times ten thousand in the same business. I would rather stand alone on this platform in behalf of the rights of men, and the religion of Jesus Christ, than to stand here with ten million advocates of a doctrine so subversive of liberty as the Bill contains. I respect the work of Christ, the Constitution of our country, and the rights of men under it. They may call me an infidel if they choose; but I know whom I believe. Their calling me an infidel does not make me one, nor prove that I am unacquainted with Jesus Christ or the wonders of his love. Allegiance to him demands that I tell to men their rights and their liberties. They must and shall be preserved!TTL 12.8

I am circulating this kind of a petition:—TTL 12.9