THE decision of Judge Bennett, as noticed last week, was that the reading of the Douay version of the Bible, according to Roman Catholic views, in the public schools, would be “sectarian instruction” within the meaning of the Constitution, and would be to inflict a wrong upon those who are not Roman Catholics. We say again, that if the reading of the Douay version, according to the Roman Catholic forms, in the public schools, would be sectarian instruction, then it is as certainly true that the reading of the King James version, according to Protestant forms, is also sectarian instruction.AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.1

It is a distinctively Protestant doctrine that the Bible, without note or comment, is the word of God. It is a distinctively Roman Catholic doctrine that the Bible as explained by the Church is the word of God. The latter is no more distinctively Catholic doctrine than the former is distinctively Protestant. The Roman Catholic doctrine on this point is not one iota more sectarian than is the Protestant doctrine. As is well known the Protestant position is defined in the motto, “The Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.” This is virtually confessed by Judge Bennett when he says:—AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.2

It is a matter of history that from the time the King James version of the Bible was printed and published it has always been read by all Protestant denominations without hindrance, and that it has been used as a reading-book in the schools of England as well as in the common schools of this country.AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.3

Certainly it has been read by all Protestant denominations, and that because they are Protestant. Certainly it has been read in the schools of England, because England is distinctively a Protestant country; Protestantism is there established by law; none but a Protestant sovereign can ever sit upon the throne; the schools of England are Protestant schools; and the King James version is read in those schools because they are Protestant and because it is intended to keep them Protestant by inculcating Protestant doctrine. And when Judge Bennett presents this reason for sanctioning the reading of the King James version in the public schools of Wisconsin or any other State, he thereby argues that those are Protestant schools, and that it is proper to endeavor to keep them so by Protestant influence and the inculcation of Protestant doctrine; and this, too, at the expense of the Roman Catholics, by compelling them to pay taxes for the same. And that is sectarian as certainly as the like would be sectarian if done by Roman Catholics.AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.4

The School Board in their answer further,—AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.5

Upon information and belief, deny that the Roman Catholic Church is the only infallible teacher or interpreter of the Bible; but, on the contrary, aver upon information and belief, that every person has the right to read and interpret it for himself.AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.6

This raises an issue that is doubly false. (1) The plaintiffs did not attempt to assert, as this answer assumed, that they wished to oblige the School Board or anybody else to receive or to acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as the only infallible teacher and interpreter of the Bible. They only asserted that this was their conscientious belief, and asserted their right not to be compelled to receive instruction in the Bible from any other source; and that when they were so compelled their rights of conscience were invaded. (2) It avers that every person has the right to read and interpret the Bible for himself, when the whole issue at bar was whether a person has the right to read it for another, and to another, against his will; and whether a set of persons can compel others to hear it read.AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.7

Although upon both these points a false issue was raised in the answer, it yet remains that on both points the Catholics were right. Has not any man an inalienable right—civil, constitutional right—to believe that the Roman Catholic is the only infallible teacher or interpreter of the Bible? Has not any man an inalienable right to believe that when the Bible is read or interpreted by another, there is danger that those who hear will receive erroneous impressions, and that such impressions will be dangerous to their spiritual welfare? Has not any person an in-alienable right to believe these things? Is it not true that these things have a proper place in the realm of conscience? Is it not true, then, that these things may be conscientiously believed? Is it not a fact that the Roman Catholics do conscientiously believe thus?AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.8

On the other hand, it is not necessary to ask whether every person has not the right to read and interpret the Bible for himself, because the school board “aver” this. Very well, then. Does not the right of every man to read and interpret it for himself carry with it also the equal right not to read or interpret it at all? And does not the right not to read or interpret it likewise carry with it the right not to be compelled to hear it read? When, therefore, the Roman Catholics were compelled to hear the Bible read in the public school buildings of the city of Edgerton, Wisconsin, was not that a direct interference with the rights of conscience?AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.9

It is impossible for us to conceive how any fair-minded person can answer any of these questions in any other way than in the affirmative. Therefore, when the Constitution of Wisconsin declares “nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted,” and the Roman Catholics appealed for protection in this their constitutional as well as inalienable right, ought not their appeal to have been heard? Yet instead of their appeal being heard, they were twitted from the judicial bench with seeing to “control the conscientious beliefs and actions of others,” and with “creating discord.”AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.10

The Court held that such was not in any way any interference with the rights of conscience, and justified itself in the following form: The Constitution of Wisconsin says, “The right of every man to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed,” and the Court said:—AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.11

But what are those rights [the rights of conscience]? Simply a right to worship the supreme Being according to the dictates of the heart. Can it be justly said in this case that the children of the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs themselves, are in any way prohibited from worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience? Does the simple reading of the King James version of the Bible interfere with or take away this great right of the plaintiffs or their children?AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.12

That is to say that, although the Roman Catholics are compelled to hear read the Protestant Bible according to Protestant form in the public school-house, they are not prohibited from reading it, or hearing it read, according to Roman Catholic forms, wherever else they may choose; that although they are compelled, in the public school, to conform to the dictates of the Protestant conscience, and to pay for it at the same time, they are not prohibited from worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience wherever else they please. In other words, although every Roman Catholic has the “great right,” the constitutional right, “to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience,” he must at the same time conform to the dictates of the Protestant conscience when required to do so. Such are the rights of conscience in Wisconsin.AMS March 6, 1890, page 74.13

(Concluded next week.)

“That Fraud of a Fraud” The American Sentinel 5, 10, pp. 75, 76.

ATJ

WE stated last week that the theory that a seventh part of time, is necessary for physical rest is a fraud and is based upon a fraud. The authority for this seventh-of-time theory is “the Rev. Nicholas Bound, D.D., of Norton, in the Suffolk,” England. He was a Puritan and promulgated this doctrine of the Sabbath, in a book which he published about the year 1595 A.D.AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.1

The way it came about was this: It was in the height of the controversy between the Church of England and the Puritans about “habits and ceremonies, and church discipline.” The Church of England maintained,AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.2

That though the holy Scriptures are a perfect standard of doctrine, they are not a rule of discipline and government: nor is the practice of the apostles an invariable rule or law to the Church in succeeding ages, because they acted according to the circumstances of the Church in its infant and persecuted state: neither are the Scriptures a rule of human actions, so far as that whatsoever we do in matters of religion without their express direction or warrant is sin, but many things are left indifferent. The Church is a society like others, invested with powers to make what laws she apprehends reasonable, decent, or necessary for her well-being and government, provided they do not interfere with or contradict the laws and commandments of holy Scripture: Where the Scripture is silent, human authority may interpose; we must then have recourse to the reason of things and the rights of society. It follows from thence that the Church is at liberty to appoint ceremonies, and establish order within the limits above mentioned; and her authority ought to determine what is fit and convenient.AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.3

All this the Puritans denied, and asserted that the Scriptures are a rule of discipline and government as well as a perfect standard of doctrine. The position of the Church of England, summarily stated, was, that, whatever the Scriptures do not forbid, in matters of church discipline and church government, may be done without sin. While the Puritan position was, that, Whatever is not commanded in the Scriptures is not commanded in the Scriptures, in these things, cannot be done without sin. The Puritans therefore dropped all church festivals and feast days, surplices, habits, and ceremonies, and charged the Episcopalians with “popish leaven and superstition, and subjection to the ordinances of men” because they retained these. As proof that ought to convince the Puritans that the Church had liberty in such things as these, the Episcopalians produced the fact that the observance of Sunday is only an ordinance of the Church and rests only upon the authority of the Church; and that the Puritans therefore, contradicted themselves in observing Sunday while denouncing the authority of the Church the only authority upon which that observance rests.AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.4

This put the Puritans in a box; and they had to cast about for some way to get themselves out. They would not admit the authority of the Church; because if they did that would involve the obligation to observe all the other festivals. Directions of Scripture to observe Sunday they found none, and yet they would not give it up. There was great perplexity. What could be done? Then it was that the inventive genius of Dr. Bound found play. He came to the rescue with the theory that, It is not the definite seventh day, but “a seventh part of time” that is required by the fourth commandment to be kept for the Sabbath: that it is “not the seventh day from creation; but the day of Christ’s resurrection, and the seventh day from that:” that “the seventh day is genus” in the fourth commandment, so that “the seventh day from creation, and the day of Christ’s resurrection and the seventh from that” are “both of them at several times comprehended in the commandment, even as genus comprehendeth both his species.” Thus the fourth commandment was made to enforce the seventh day from creation until the resurrection of Christ and then the first day from that time onward.AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.5

This brought joy to the Puritans, for it relieved them from the dilemma into which the answer of the Episcopalians had cast them. “This book had a wonderful spread among the people.” “All the Puritans fell in with this doctrine, and distinguished themselves by spending that part of sacred time in public, family, and private acts of devotion.” Says Heylin:—AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.6

This doctrine, carrying such a fair show of piety, at least in the opinion of the common people, and such as did not examine the true grounds of it, induced many to embrace and defend it; and in a very little time it became the most bewitching error and the most popular infatuation that ever was embraced by the people of England.AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.7

But for what purpose was this “seventh part of time” appointed? for what was it to be used when it had been discovered?AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.8

“This year [1594] Dr. Bound published his treatise on the Sabbath, wherein he maintains the morality of a seventh part of time for the worship of God.—Neal, History of the Puritans, Part I Chapter VIII paragraph, 120.AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.9

There was not in it the remotest idea that this time was for physical rest. It was solely for worship and religious exercises. The suggestion of such a thought as that this time was intended or might be devoted to physical rest would have been spurned as only the suggestion of the arch enemy of all righteousness, by the founder of the theory and by every other Puritan that ever lived in Puritan times. The theory therefore that a seventh part of time is necessary for physical rest is a positive fraud upon the original.AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.10

And that the original invention that a seventh part of time is what is commanded and required, by the fourth commandment, is a positive fraud, is clearly proved not only by the circumstances of its invention but also by every test of Scripture and every rule of law.AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.11

But this theory of a seventh part of time for physical rest is not only a fraud upon the original Puritan theory of a seventh part of time for the worship of God, it is also a fraud upon the commandment of God which enjoins the day of rest. That commandment says: “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.12

Here are the reasons: first, he rested on the seventh day; second, he blessed it and made it holy. That you may become tired is not given as a reason for doing no work on the seventh day. God does not say that on the seventh day you shall do no work because if you should you would overdo or break down your physical system. Nothing of the kind. Man’s physical wants are not referred to in the commandment. It says, Work six days because the Lord worked six days; rest on the seventh because the Lord rested on the seventh day; keep that day holy, because the Lord blessed it and made it holy. It is the Lord who is to be held in view. It is the Lord who is to be exalted. Therefore the fourth commandment and its obligations have solely to do with man’s relationship to God. It is not man’s physical but his spiritual, needs that are held in view in the Sabbath commandment.AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.13

This is further proved by referring again to the reason given in the commandment for the resting. It is to rest the seventh day because the Lord rested that day. Now did the Lord rest because he was weary from what he had done on the six days? Did he rest because if he should work longer there was danger of over-doing or breaking down his physical system? Not at all. “Has thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?” Isaiah 40:28. This is what the Scripture says of it; and what one of the chief Sunday-law workers says of it is this:—AMS March 6, 1890, page 75.14

If he is never weary how can we say of him that he rests? ... God is a spirit, and the only rest which he can know is the supreme repose which only the Spirit can know—in the fulfillment of his purpose and the completeness as well as the completion of his work. Just as in the solemn pauses between the creative days, he pronounced his creatures “good,” so did he rejoice over the finishing of his work, resting in perfect satisfaction of an accomplished plan; not to restore his wasted energy.”—Rev. Geo. Elliott, Abiding Sabbath, Chap. I.AMS March 6, 1890, page 76.1

The rest with which the Lord rested was spiritual rest, spiritual refreshing, and delight in the accomplished work of the creation. As the Lord’s Sabbath rest was spiritual; and as his so resting is the reason for man’s Sabbath rest, so man’s Sabbath is likewise to be one of spiritual rest, spiritual-refreshing, and delight in the works and ways of God. This is proved by that psalm for the Sabbath day, “Thou Lord hast made me glad through thy work; I will triumph in the works of thy hands.” Psalm 92:4. And by another Scripture, “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord.” Isaiah 58:13, 14.AMS March 6, 1890, page 76.2

A day of weekly rest is in itself an institution of God. Its basis is the rest of God, which was wholly spiritual. Its purpose is to cultivate the spiritual in man. Its authority is the commandment of God which is spiritual and religious, and which must be religiously and spiritually observed to be observed at all. As says the seer of Patmos “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” The whole subject, therefore, in all its bearings is entirely beyond the jurisdiction and even the reach of the power of civil government or of man, It rests wholly in the power and jurisdiction of God, and remains solely between the individual and God.AMS March 6, 1890, page 76.3

Thus, we repeat, it is not man’s physical, but his spiritual needs that are to be held in view in the Sabbath commandment. The Sabbath is intended to be a day in which to worship God—a day of holy remembrance of him and of meditation upon his works. The day is to be kept holy, not civilly nor physically. If it is not kept holy it is not kept at all in the purview of the commandment and the Author of the day of weekly rest.AMS March 6, 1890, page 76.4

ANALYSIS

1. The Puritan theory of one-seventh part of time for the Sabbath is and in its inception was, a fraud upon the commandment of God.AMS March 6, 1890, page 76.5

2. The theory of one-seventh part of time for physical rest is a fraud upon the original Puritan theory.AMS March 6, 1890, page 76.6

3. The seventh part of time for physical rest is therefore a fraud upon a fraud.AMS March 6, 1890, page 76.7

SYNTHESIS

1. In addition to its being a fraud upon the Puritan theory the seventh part of time for physical rest is also a fraud upon the commandment of God.AMS March 6, 1890, page 76.8

2. The Puritan theory of a seventh part of time for the Sabbath is itself a fraud upon the commandment of God.AMS March 6, 1890, page 76.9

3. The two together therefore—the Puritan Sabbath and the weekly physical rest day—interlocked as they are, form a HEAPED UP FRAUD.AMS March 6, 1890, page 76.10

A. T. J.

“That Orthodoxy in Iowa” The American Sentinel 5, 10, p. 77.

ATJ

THE following letter we cheerfully publish. It is self-explanatory:—AMS March 6, 1890, page 77.1

Marshalltown, Iowa, February 17, 1890.AMS March 6, 1890, page 77.2

Editor “AMERICAN SENTINEL.”AMS March 6, 1890, page 77.3

Dear Sir: Your article in the SENTINEL of January 3 “Was it Orthodox?”—has just come to my notice and I thank you for publishing the facts. But you have been misinformed in one particular. The following is a mistake: “Although a majority [of the veterans at the Soldiers’ Home] sanctioned the arrangement of the orthodox ministers [to exclude me from preaching at the Home], a large minority were decidedly outspoken against it,” etc. The fact is that the protest against the arrangement was almost unanimous, not only among the veterans located there but also among the people at large.AMS March 6, 1890, page 77.4

The number of veterans located in the Home is three hundred and twenty-five, and when the arrangement with the “Ministerial Expulsion Association,” as it is called here, became known at the Home before the arrangement was completed, a petition was circulated among them asking that the Universalist minister should not be debarred from his appointment, which was signed by over two hundred of the veterans and more would have signed it but the commandant gave them the assurance that the proposition of the so-called “orthodox” ministers would not be accepted and I would not be excluded. Receiving this promise they ceased circulating the petition.AMS March 6, 1890, page 77.5

In justice to the noble veterans of the late war, removing from them the slanderous implication that a majority of them would be in favor of any arrangement so much opposed to the spirit of our country’s Constitution, I have written this letter.AMS March 6, 1890, page 77.6

Hoping you will receive this in the same kind spirit in which it is written.AMS March 6, 1890, page 81.1

I am truly,

T. W. WOODROW.

Pastor Universalist Church.

The source of our information was a leading, if not the leading, Sioux City paper (the name of which has slipped our memory) and we simply reported the case as it was stated there. Our attention was attracted more particularly to the “orthodox” injustice, than to any other feature of the case. That seemed to us to be bad enough in all conscience, even though a much smaller minority than was reported had protested. Now that our attention is directed more fully to the other side, we are happy to do justice to the manly spirit of the veterans, and of “the people at large.” And as this noble defense of Mr. Woodrow’s rights redounds the more to the credit of the veterans, the action of that ministers’ association is caused to approach the more nearly to organized meanness.AMS March 6, 1890, page 77.1

A. T. J.

February 27, 1890

March 13, 1890