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

    October 16, 1889

    “Sunday in California and New York” American Sentinel 4, 37.

    E. J. Waggoner

    Mr. Crafts has been in California, the only State in the Union which has no Sunday law; and the people may now expect to have it held up in season and out of season as the terrible example of immorality and vice consequent upon having no Sunday law. In his speeches here be declared that the State had retrograded in religion and morals since the repeal of its Sunday laws six years ago. To be sure Mr. Crafts was not in California six years ago, or before, when they bad a Sunday law, and has not been here since that time, with the exception of a few days this year; but that doesn’t make any difference with him.AMS October 16, 1889, page 296.1

    But he does not find it all clear sailing in his endeavor to make capital for Sunday laws at the expense of California. At a meeting of the Congregational club in San Francisco, at which Mr. Crafts was present, the Rev. Dr. Barrows, of that city, said that what Dr. Crafts had said about the moral and religious declension in California was not true; that he had been here eight years, and that in all that time there had been a steady and constant advance in the moral and religious status, and that Dr. Crafts had been here but a few days and could not judge. He protested strongly against Dr. Crafts carrying such a report back to the East, because it was not true. The report of the meeting continues as follows: “Dr. Williams of Tulare City indorsed Dr. Barrows’ remarks. The Sabbath was as well observed in Tulare as in any city that he had ever lived in. He was certainly in favor of the workingmen having the privilege of Sunday rest, but for the churches to press Sunday observance on the State, upon religious grounds, and endeavor indirectly to compel men to go to church by strict Sunday laws, could do no good, and might do much harm to the cause of religion. Rev. Dr. Cruzan of the Third Congregational Church, San Francisco, agreed with Dr. Williams and Dr. Barrows. During his recent visit to the East he had spent a Sunday at Coney Island. There was nothing like it for immorality and dissipation on the Pacific Coast; yet this was right under the nose of Dr. Crafts when he was at home, in a State that had strict Sunday laws.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 296.2

    “Let this be repeated everywhere Mr. Crafts goes. It comes from men who are earnest in their endeavor to get Sunday laws, but who are more interested in truth than in victory. It shows, what the Alta California claimed in a recent editorial, that Sunday laws are not necessary for the preservation of morality, and that California without any Sunday law is equal with, and even in advance, morally, of some States that have a stringent Sunday law.AMS October 16, 1889, page 296.3

    But the point in the above quotation to which we wish to call especial attention is the charge by Dr. Williams, that Sunday laws, such as Mr. Crafts is laboring to secure, are an attempt to compel men to go to church. Mr. Crafts has complained bitterly because we have charged the same thing upon his movement. But here we have a statement to the same effect made by a minister who is engaged with him in an effort to secure a Sunday law, but who does not believe in going to the same length. This is another demonstration that the SENTINEL has not misrepresented the Sunday-law movement. E. J. W.AMS October 16, 1889, page 296.4

    “Mr. Small on Church and State” American Sentinel 4, 38.

    E. J. Waggoner

    Under the heading, “No Steps Backward,” the Voice, in its issue of August 8, had the following:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.1

    In a recent issue of The Voice, we called attention to some very foolish things uttered by the AMERICAN SENTINEL, a paper published at Oakland, Cal., which devotes itself to getting up religious bugaboos. It made the childish statement that “work done for party Prohibition is work done to promote the union of Church and State, and to bind the citizens of the United States in a worse slavery than was ever suffered by the negroes;” and then, in reply to our article showing just where the Prohibition party stood, it said:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.2

    The Voice says it has ‘never heard of a prominent Prohibitionist who favored the union of Church and State.’ Now Mr. Sam. Small is a prominent Prohibitionist-one of the most prominent of Prohibitionists in fact. He was secretary of the National Prohibition Convention of 1888, and he publicly declared this in Kansas City in January of that year:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.3

    “‘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 powers will respect it and enact it into laws.’AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.4

    “If that would not be a union of Church and State, will The Voice please tell us what would be? If that would not be a union of Church and State, then there never has been and never can be any such thing as a union of Church and State. Such a thing as that, therefore, being a union of Church and State, and Mr. Sam. Small being a prominent Prohibitionist, it is proved that there is at least one prominent Prohibitionist who favors a union of Church and State.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.5

    Thinking Mr. Small the most competent person to speak for Mr. Small, we inclosed the article to him and asked him to state his opinions on the union of Church and State, which he does as follows:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.6

    To The Voice—The representation of the AMERICAN SENTINEL that I favor a union of Church and State is wholly an invention of the enemy. The extract he quotes from a partial report of a sermon I preached in Kansas City in January, 1888, is sufficiently correct to mislead; not exact enough, however, to convey the thought which I clearly expressed and which, at the time, secured the approval of an audience of thousands, the large majority of which was not made up of ‘third party’ prohibitionists. If the AMERICAN SENTINEL desires to do me and the Prohibition party justice, I can repeat my thoughts as clearly now as I did on the occasion in question.AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.7

    “The quotation from my sermon should read as follows:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.8

    “‘I want to see the day come in the history of our country when the voice of the church of Christ will be heard and respected upon all vital, moral issues. I shall ever hope for and patiently expect the day when legislation, State, national, and municipal, will be projected in harmony with the eternal principle of justice and righteousness, revealed by Christ and proclaimed by his church. Happy will be the day when “righteousness exalts the nation,” when sin is no longer the reproach of our people; when the harmonious judgment of the people of God in America upon the issues of temperance, purity, and uprightness shall be received with respect and enacted into laws; when this people, who owe so much to divine favor, will have no more fellowship with “throne of iniquity,” “which frameth mischief by a law,” and that continually!’AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.9

    “I hold that the above expressions are in perfect harmony with the principles of the National Prohibition party, as expressed in its preamble and platform. There is in them no warrant for any sane man to pronounce me an advocate of the ‘union of Church and State.’ The charge is a device of desperation to compass an argument against the Prohibition party. At the same time it is a fraud upon the readers of AMERICAN SENTINEL, or a queer confession of the idiocy of its constituency.AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.10

    “Yours truly, SAM. W. SMALL.”

    If any person’s superstitious fears have been wrought upon by stories of the spooks of the Dark Ages, he may rest assured that the Prohibition party isn’t going to revive any of them. The wheels civilization don’t turn backward.AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.11

    The extract referred to was published in thee SENTINEL a long time ago. It was taken from a religious paper, one that could have no interest in misquoting Mr. Small, therefore we were warranted in supposing that it was correct. The SENTINEL has never knowingly misrepresented a single person.AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.12

    But in this case we are happy to learn from Mr. Small’s own version that the SENTINEL did not do him any injustice. While he did not use the exact words that were attributed to him in the report which the SENTINEL quoted, he did use language which conveys all that we drew from what we supposed were the exact words. Said he, “I want to see the day come in the history of our country when the voice of the church of Christ will be heard and respected upon all vital moral issues.” Mr. Small will not deny that his idea was that the voice of the church should be heard and respected not simply by men as individuals, but by men as grouped together in political parties, and by men as statesmen, judges, etc. Now we say that when that time does come, we shall have a union of Church and State as surely as such a thing ever existed. It will simply be the church dictating, and we say the church has no right to be heard and respected by political parties as such. In the darkest of the Dark Ages, when Church and State union was at its height, the case was simply that the voice of the church was heard and respected by the State. The church dictated the policy of the State.AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.13

    Bishop Vincent says most emphatically that the church makes a great mistake when it seeks to secure worldly position and to influence temporal power. Said he, “All the church wants is spiritual power, and the only influence it has any right to have is the influence it may have with individuals as individuals.” Mr. Small is doubtless perfectly sincere and honest in his disavowal of any union of Church and State. It would seem that he simply wants the church to assume its rightful prerogative. That is all that Cardinal Woolsey or Pope Hildebrand ever desired. The great trouble with them was that they were mistaken in regard to the church’s rightful position. That is the trouble with Mr. Small. We see no reason, after a careful reading of Mr. Small’s own statement of his position in his sermon, to withdraw our statement that he is really in favor of a union of Church and State.AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.1

    And this charge is no device of desperation to compass an argument against the Prohibition party. The SENTINEL has no fight with the Prohibition party upon its prohibition principles. We have to do simply with those Prohibitionists who, like Mr. Small, would use the Prohibition party as a religious machine. We are thankful to know that there are many in the party who have no sympathy with any such movement.AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.2

    As to Mr. Small’s insinuation against the readers of the AMERICAN SENTINEL, we have only to say that they number many thousands in every part of the United States, consisting chiefly of professional men, doctors, lawyers, judges, members of State Legislatures, ministers of the gospel, as well as laboring men; and Mr. Small will not enhance his own popularity by wholesale charges of idiocy against our country’s best citizens.AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.3

    As to the statement of the Voice, that the AMERICAN SENTINEL spends its time in getting up religious bugaboos, we will only say that there is no need for us to work in that line so long as the Voice, while professedly working for prohibition, actually makes that secondary to religious legislation. The SENTINEL lays no claim to being an inventor; it simply exposes the inventions of others.AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.4

    E. J. W.

    “Sunday Closing Not a Temperance Measure” American Sentinel 4, 38.

    E. J. Waggoner

    In our opposition to Sunday laws we have frequently been charged with working in the interests of the liquor traffic. Many claim, and we do not doubt but a great majority of them think, that the enactment of a rigid Sunday law would be in the interest of temperance. We have always denied this, and we think have demonstrated it many times. It was only recently that we published a short article on this point in the SENTINEL, in answer to the criticism of a sub-scriber. We are glad now to be able to present a definite statement on this point from a temperance worker who is also an ardent advocate of the Sunday law. The New York Voice of August 22 contains the experience of a pastor residing in Crete, New York. From some statements in his letter we think he is a Congregationalist. In the course of his article, which is a strong prohibition utterance, he says:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.5

    “The saloon keepers of this place have not sold openly on the Sabbath to any great extent. That the Sunday restriction has its merits as a Sabbath-observance measure is true, and as such it should secure a strict enforcement. As a temperance measure it has little merit. It is just as practicable to get the Sunday supply of whisky or beer as of steak or roast. When the Omaha mayor a few weeks ago began shutting up the Sunday saloon in that city, men had a dry and dreadful time for the first Sunday under that policy. They had not dreamed it to be a serious purpose of the mayor. They were not caught a second Sunday, however; they got an abundant supply the Saturday before. The entire traffic can be carried on in six days, the only objection being that it is a little Iess convenient to get and keep over the Sunday supply.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.6

    We hope the Voice will not be accused of working in the interest of the saloon, because it published this statement. We believe in prohibition, but we are strongly opposed to prohibition, so called, only one day in the week. But we are in favor of it three hundred and sixty-five days in the year. We say that the Sunday-closing movement not only has no value whatever as a temperance measure, but that it is a strong prop to the liquor traffic, in that it tends to make it respectable. This it does by placing it on a level with all other lines of business and making it legitimate. Let us illustrate:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.7

    A good, conscientious woman who on Sunday morning sees her little boy playing ball, says, “Johnny, you should not play ball on Sunday. You must not do that.’ What idea would Johnny get from his mother’s words? Would he say, “Mother says it is not right to play ball”?—No. He would say, “Mother says it is not right to play ball on Sunday, but it is right to play ball on other days.” Suppose she sees her boy smoking a cigar on Sunday, and, of course, does not want him to smoke, would she say, “Johnny, don’t you know that you ought not to smoke cigars on Sunday?” Would not the boy get the idea from that that it was not wrong for him to smoke cigars, but that it was simply wrong to smoke on Sunday? He could get no other idea. But, no; it is wrong, and it hurts her boy, no matter on what day it is done, and she does not want him to smoke at all, Sunday or any other day.AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.8

    The special point that we would leave with our readers is this, that any of them who are inclined to oppose Sunday laws, yet who have been hesitating because they were temperance men, need hesitate no longer. The Sunday-closing movement and the temperance movement have nothing in common.AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.9

    E. J. W.

    “The Petition and the Inquisition” American Sentinel 4, 38.

    E. J. Waggoner

    The supplement to the March monthly document of the American Sabbath Union was devoted to a statement of how the friends of the Sunday might co-operate with the union. Following an extract from the constitution, which states that the object of the union is “to preserve the Christian Sabbath as a day of rest and worship,” there was an earnest appeal to every individual to push the petitions for a Sunday law, making not the least abatement because Congress had adjourned. The following form of petition, was suggested:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.1

    “The undersigned organizations and adult residents of the United States, twenty-one years of age or more, earnestly petition you to pass a bill forbidding in the government’s mail and military service and in inter-state commerce, and in the District of Columbia and the Territories, all Sunday traffic and work, except works of necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week by abstaining from labor and business, as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.2

    We claim that this petition alone furnishes ample proof that the American Sabbath Union contemplates a union of Church and State in the fullest sense, and is providing-unconsciously it may be, but none the less surely-for the establishment of the Inquisition. Strange as it may seem to some, we find the strongest proof of this in the proposed exemption of those that observe another day.AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.3

    The workers for a Sunday law lay a great deal of stress on the fact that they make such an excerption. In his speech before the Senate Committee, Mr. Crafts spoke of the exception that is made to the Seventh-day Baptists by the laws of Rhode Island, allowing them to carry on public industries on the first day of the week, and said that “the tendency of Legislatures and executive officers towards those who claim to keep a Saturday Sabbath is to over-leniency rather than, over-strictness.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.4

    In the same hearing Mrs. Bateham spoke of the exemption that was asked for in the petition, stating that they would like to exempt Seventh-day keepers from the penalties of the law for which they asked, providing it could be done, but that if such an exemption would work, against the general enforcement of the law then they did not wish it. These statements show that they simply regard themselves as making a great concession when they do not persecute people who rest upon Saturday. Dr. Bothwell, of Oakland, Cal., stated their reeling very well when he said:AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.5

    “Most of the States make provision for the exercise of the peculiar tenets of belief which are entertained by the Adventists. They can worship on Saturday, and call it the Sabbath, if they choose; but there let their privileges end. Instead of thankfully making use of concessions granted them, and then going off quietly and attending to their own business, as they ought, they start out making unholy alliances that they may defeat the purposes of their benefactors.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.6

    With these statements compare the following from the first chapter of Dr. Schaff’s work on “The Progress of Religious Freedom, as Shown in the History of Toleration Acts.” Says he:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.7

    “An edict or act of toleration is a grant of the civil government, which authorizes religious societies dissenting from the State religion to worship according to the dictates of conscience without liability to persecution. Such an edict always presupposes a religion established by law and supported by the State, and the right of the State to control public worship. Toleration may proceed from necessity, or from prudence, or from indifference, or from liberality and an enlarged view of truth and right. It may be extended or withdrawn by the government; but it is usually the entering wedge for religious liberty and legal equality.AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.8

    “There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. The one is a concession, the other a right; the one is a matter of expediency, the other a principle; the one is a gift of man, the other a gift of God.AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.9

    “Toleration implies more or less censure or disapproval. We tolerate or endure what we dislike or cannot prevent. The most despotic governments are tolerant towards subjects who are too numerous or too useful to be killed or exiled. Russia tolerates Romanists, Protestants, Jews, and Mohammedans; Turkey tolerates ‘Christian dogs,’ and likes them to prey upon each other; but woe to him in either country who apostatizes from the State religion, or attempts to induce any member of the same to apostasy. Toleration is first sought and granted as a favor, then demanded and conceded as a right, and at last spurned as an insult. In a free country nobody wants to be tolerated for his religious opinions or sacred convictions.AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.10

    “Religious liberty is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable right of every man. It is founded on the sacredness of conscience, which is the voice of God in man, and above the reach and control of human authority. There is a law above all human laws. It is written, not on parchment and tables of stone, but on the heart of man by the finger of God. It is that law which commands with the categorical imperative, and which filled the philosopher Kant with ever-growing reverence and awe. ‘We must obey God more than man.’ He and he alone is the Author and Lord of conscience, and no power on earth has a right to interpose itself between them. ‘Every man stands or falls to his own Lord.’ Liberty of con-science requires liberty of worship as its manifestation. To grant the former and to deny the latter is to imprison conscience and to promote hypocrisy or infidelity. Religion is in its nature voluntary, ar4d ceases to be religion in proportion as it is forced. God, wants free worshipers, and no others.AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.11

    “Toleration is an intermediate state between religious persecution and religious liberty. Persecution results from the union of Church and State; toleration, from a relaxation of that union; full religious liberty and legal equality require a peaceful separation of the spiritual and secular powers.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 305.12

    Note particularly what he says of toleration, that it is an intermediate state between religious persecution and religious liberty. He says also that it is usually “the entering wedge for religious liberty and legal equality.” This is true, providing it has been preceded by despotic intolerance. If a government has rigidly persecuted everyone who dissents from the established religion, then an act of toleration would be the entering wedge toward religious liberty-a step toward freedom; but if perfect liberty and equality have been enjoyed by the citizens of a government, then an act of toleration would be a long stride toward the taking away of religious freedom. For an act of toleration, as Dr. Schaff truly says, “Always presupposes a religion established by law and supported by the State, and the right of the State to control public worship.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 306.1

    The very fact of exemptions being thought of in a law-the use of the word concession and toleration-shows the existence of a despotic law; so that the more the Sunday-law advocates talk about “concessions, the more they boast of their leniency, the more they press their petition for a Sunday law which shall exempt those who religiously and regularly observe another day, the more they proclaim the fact that they are working for a State religion. Now, whenever a religion, or any form of religion, is established by the State, the Inquisition and persecution must inevitably follow. For in such a case an offense against the established religion is an offense against the State; and of course the State is bound to punish all who violate its laws. But punishment by the State for differences of opinion, or of acts in matters of religion, is persecution.AMS October 16, 1889, page 306.2

    Note particularly the petition which we quoted. It provides for the exemption of those who “religiously and regularly” observe another day of the week. How, in the face of this, it is possible for the framers and advocates of that petition to claim that they are not working for a State religion, it is impossible for us to conceive. That petition lays the foundation for the Inquisition; and if a law should be passed in harmony with it, the Inquisition would have to be established. How can the State tell who do and who do not religiously observe another day? Anyone can see that the petition plans for the State to inquire, not simply into a man’s religious or irreligious acts, but into the motives of his acts. Of course it is well understood that under all circumstances there are people who have a form of religion, people who do certain things professedly in the name of religion, yet from selfish motives. Now if a law is passed in accordance with this petition, the State through its officers would be obliged to inquire into the motives which prompt a man’s rest upon Saturday. No individual will have any guarantee that he will remain unmolested for a week. He may be brought up at any time at the instigation of any bigot or any person who has a fancied grudge towards him, and put under examination as to whether or not he observes another day from religious motives. And the worst of it all will be that in such examination his own testimony will avail nothing. Of course those who do observe the day religiously would say so; and any who are not conscientious in their observance of the day would, in order to escape the penalty, declare that they observed it religiously. And so whether or not a person were cleared would depend upon the testimony of men who might have bitter prejudice toward him.AMS October 16, 1889, page 306.3

    We believe that every thoughtful, candid individual can see that to work for this petition is to work directly for as wicked a persecution as ever existed on earth. Let those who see this point use all their energy in setting the light clearly before others, in order that they may not be deceived by the specious arguments of those who are working for the Sunday law. To every individual that petition will be presented, and many will be misled by its outward pretention to justice and of caring for the rights of a minority, unaware that in this very concession is the strongest proof of the wicked character of the proposed law.AMS October 16, 1889, page 306.4

    E. J. W.

    Larger font
    Smaller font