Civil Government and Religion

LOOK ON THAT PICTURE, THEN ON THIS

In a preceding chapter, we have given verbatim the Blair National Sunday bill, and have discussed some of its provisions. As we have seen, its object is clearly declared to be, to secure to the whole people rest on the Lord’s day, and “to promote its observance as a day of worship;” and everything in the bill is to be construed, as far as possible, to secure the observance of the Sabbath “as a day of worship.” This is the purpose of the bill: what is the purpose of those who are working so strenuously to have the bill become a law? CGRRLL 97.2

On Nov. 8, 1887, a convention was held in Elgin, Ill., which was “called by the members of the Elgin Association of Congregational Ministers and Churches, to consider the prevalent desecration of the Sabbath, and its remedy.” In that convention, Dr. W. W. Everts, of Chicago, said:— CGRRLL 98.1

“This day is set apart for divine worship and preparation for another life. It is the test of all religion.” CGRRLL 98.2

This clearly shows that the object of those who are working for Sunday laws is wholly religious, and that they are endeavoring to secure the power of the State to further their own aims. The Sabbath is indeed set apart for divine worship and preparation for divine worship, and the preparation of men for another life, but the observances of divine worship, and the preparation of men for another life, are committed by Jesus Christ to the church. The State cannot of right have anything to do with religious observances, and it is impossible for the civil power to prepare men for another life. Therefore, as this work belongs wholly to the church, and as the church wants to use the civil power for this purpose, it follows that these church leaders of our day, like those of the fourth century, are determined to make use of the power of the State to further their own aims. CGRRLL 98.3

“It is the test of all religion,” says Dr. Everts. Then what can ever be the enforcement of it but the enforcement of a religious test? That is precisely what it is. Again, the same speaker said:— CGRRLL 98.4

“The people who do not keep the Sabbath, have no religion.” CGRRLL 98.5

Very good. The antithesis of this is also true: the people who do keep the Sabbath have religion. Therefore this demand for laws to Sabbath, is only a demand for laws to compel men to keep the Sabbath, is only a demand for laws to compel people to have religion. CGRRLL 98.6

Again Dr. Everts said:— CGRRLL 99.1

“He who does not keep the Sabbath, does not worship God; and he who does not worship God, is lost.” CGRRLL 99.2

Admitted. Therefore this demand for laws to compel men to keep the Sabbath, is only a demand for laws to compel them to worship God. CGRRLL 99.3

Nor is Mr. Everts alone in this. Joseph Cook, in the Boston Monday lectureship of 1887, said:— CGRRLL 99.4

“The experience of centuries shows that you will in vain endeavor to preserve Sunday as a day of rest, unless you preserve it as a day of worship.” CGRRLL 99.5

And Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts, in the Washington, D. C., national Sunday convention, Dec. 11-13, 1888, said:— CGRRLL 99.6

“If you take religion out of the day, you take the rest out of it.” CGRRLL 99.7

These statements from the representative men of this movement, are sufficient to show that the movement is wholly religious. But, we repeat, religious observances and the promotion of religion, God has committed to the church only. Therefore this Sunday-law movement, as that in the fourth century, is only an effort on the part of the church to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of her aims. More than this, to the church, and to her alone, God has committed the power by which alone religion can be promoted; that is, the power of the Holy Spirit. So long as she has this power, she needs no other, and she will ask for no other. Therefore by this so widely prevalent movement on the part of the church to secure the power of the State by which to promote religion and religious observances, it is proved that the church has lost the power of promoting religious observances. CGRRLL 99.8

The object of this movement is not only identical with that of the fourth century, but the arguments and methods used to attain that object are identical with those of the fourth century. There it was pleaded that without a Sunday law the people would not sufficiently attend to things divine. CGRRLL 99.9

At the Elgin convention, the following resolutions were passed:— CGRRLL 100.1

“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 origin 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.” CGRRLL 100.2

Let us read the commandment according to this resolution: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it civilly. The seventh day 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 seventh day they rested. Wherefore they blessed the Sabbath day, and civilized it. CGRRLL 100.3

“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” is what the commandment says, and that is whose it is. The word Sabbath means rest. But the rest belongs to the one who rested. Who rested?—God. From what?—From the work of creation. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” says the commandment. It is religious entirely. There is nothing either American or civil about it. It is the Lord’s, and it is holy. If it is not kept holy, it is not kept at all. And being the Sabbath of the Lord—the Lord’s day—it is to be rendered to the Lord, and not to Cesar. With its observance or non-observance, civil government can never of right have anything to do. The second resolution was this:— CGRRLL 100.4

“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 news-papers, 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.” CGRRLL 101.1

That is a fact. They ought to be ashamed of it. But what do they do 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, by showing them their duty in regard to these things?—Oh, no. They resolve to do this:— CGRRLL 101.2

“Resolved. 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.” CGRRLL 101.3

Yes, they are ashamed and sorry that Christians will not act like Christians, morally and religiously; therefore they will compel them to act both morally and religiously, by enforcing upon them a civil Sabbath! But if men will not obey the commandment of God, without being compelled to do it by the civil law, then when they obey the civil law, are they obeying God?—They are not. Do not these people, then, in that, put the civil law in the place of the law of God, and the civil government in the place of God?—They assuredly do. And that is always the inevitable effect of such attempts as this. It makes utter confusion of all civil and religious relations, and only adds hypocrisy to guilt, and increases unto more godliness. There is another important consideration just here. They never intend to secure nor to enforce a civil Sunday, but a religious one wholly; for in all the discussions of that whole convention, there was not a word said about a civil Sabbath, except in two of these resolutions. In the discussions of the resolutions themselves, everything was upon a religious basis. There is no such thing as a civil Sunday; and no man can argue three minutes in favor of a civil Sunday, without making it only what it is, religious wholly. CGRRLL 101.4

In a Sunday-law mass-meeting held in Hamilton Hall, Oakland, Cal., in January, 1887, Rev. Dr. Briggs, of Napa, Cal., said to the State:— CGRRLL 102.1

“You relegate moral instruction to the church, and then let all go as they please on Sunday, so that we cannot get at them.” CGRRLL 102.2

And so they want the State to corral all the people on Sunday, that the preachers may get at them. That is what they wanted in the fourth century. They got it at last. CGRRLL 102.3

They demand that the Sunday paper shall be abolished, because, as stated by Dr. Everts in the Eligin convention:— CGRRLL 102.4

“The laboring class are apt to rise late on Sunday morning, read the Sunday papers, and allow the hour of worship to go by unheeded.” CGRRLL 102.5

And Dr. Herrick Johnson, in the Illinois Sunday convention, in Farwell Hall, Chicago, Nov. 20, 21, 1888, said of the Sunday newspaper:— CGRRLL 102.6

“The saloon cannot come into our homes; the house of ill-fame cannot come into our parlors; but the Sunday paper is everywhere. It creeps into our homes on Sunday. It can so easily be put into the pocket and taken into the parlor and read.” CGRRLL 102.7

Then he named the matter with which he said the Sunday papers are filled,—”crime, scandal, gossip, news, and politics,“—and said:— CGRRLL 102.8

“What a mélange! what a dish to set down before a man before breakfast and after breakfast, to prepare him for hearing the word of God! It makes it twice as hard to reach those who go to the sanctuary, and it keeps many away from the house of worship altogether. They read the paper; the time comes to go to church; but it is said, ‘Here is something interesting; I will read it, and not go to church to-day.’” CGRRLL 103.1

The Sunday railway train must also be stopped, and for the same reason. In the speech above referred to, Dr. Johnson, speaking of the Inter Ocean Sunday news-train, described how the people would flock to the station to see the train, and said:— CGRRLL 103.2

“In the Sabbath lull from politics, business, etc., the people would go to church were it not for the attraction of the Inter Ocean special train.” CGRRLL 103.3

In the Elgin convention, Dr. Everts said:— CGRRLL 103.4

“The Sunday train is another great evil. They cannot afford to run a train unless they get a great many passengers, and so break up a great many congregations. The Sunday railroad trains are hurrying their passengers fast on to perdition. What an outrage that the railroad, that great civilizer, should destroy the Christian Sabbath!” CGRRLL 103.5

And “Rev.” M. A. Gault, of the National Reform Association, in the Christian Statesman, Sept. 25, 1844, said:— CGRRLL 103.6

“This railroad [the Chicago and Rock Island] has been running excursion tains from Des Moines to Colfax Springs on the Sabbath for some time, and the ministers complain that their members go on these excursions.” CGRRLL 103.7

It is not necessary to add any more statements; they are all in the same line. They all plainly show that the secret and real object of the whole Sunday-law movement is to get the people to go to church. The Sunday train must be stopped, because church-members ride on it, and don’t go to church enough. The Sunday paper must be abolished, because the people read it and go to church, and because those who read it and go to church too, are not so well prepared to receive the preaching. CGRRLL 103.8

It was precisely the same way in the fourth century concerning the Sunday circus and theater. The people, even the church-members, would go to these instead of to church; and even if any went to both, it must be confessed that the Roman circus or theater was not a very excellent dish—“What a mélange!”—to set down before a man to prepare him for hearing the word of God. The Sunday circus and theater could not afford to keep open unless they could get a great many spectators, and so break up a great many congregations. And as they hurried the spectators fast on to perdition, they had to be shut on Sunday, so as to keep “a great many congregations” out of perdition. It is exceedingly difficult to see how a Sunday circus in the fourth century could hurry to perdition any one who did not attend it; or how a Sunday train in the nineteenth century can hurry to perdition any one who does not ride on it. And it any are hurried to perdition by this means, who is to blame: the Sunday train, or the ones who ride on it? And Dr. Johnson’s complaint of the Sunday papers’ being worse than the saloon or the house of ill-fame, because these cannot get into the home, is of the same flimsy piece. The saloon can be taken into the home, if a person will but put it into his pocket, and the house of ill-fame can be taken into the parlor, if a man will put it under his cloak; and if the Sunday paper gets there by being put into the pocket, where lies the blame: upon the paper, or upon the one who puts it into his pocket? Right here lies the secret of the whole evil now, as it did in the fourth century: they blame everybody and everything else, even to inanimate things, for the irreligion, the infidelity, and the sin that lie in their own hearts. CGRRLL 104.1

Now are they going to be content with a little. Dr. Crafts, speaking before the United States Senate committee in April, 1888, in favor of the National Sunday law, said:— CGRRLL 105.1

“The law allows the local postmaster if he chooses (and some of them do choose), to open the mails at the very hour of church, and so make the post-office the competitor of the churches.” CGRRLL 105.2

This same trouble was experienced in the fourth century also, between the circus or the theater, and the church. The church could not stand competition; she would be content with nothing less than a monopoly, and she got it, precisely as these church managers are trying to get it. More than this, they want now, as they did then, the government to secure them in the enjoyment of a perpetual monopoly. At another point in the same speech, Mr. Crafts referred to the proposed law as one for “protecting the church services from post-office competition.” And in explaining how this could be done, he said:— CGRRLL 105.3

“A law forbidding the opening between ten and twelve, would better than nothing; but we want more.” CGRRLL 105.4

How much more? He continues:— CGRRLL 105.5

“A law forbidding any handling of Sunday mail at such hours as would interfere with church attendance on the part of the employees, would be better than nothing; but we want more than this.” CGRRLL 105.6

How much more? He continues:— CGRRLL 105.7

“Local option in deciding whether a local post-office shall be open at all on Sunday, we should welcome as better than nothing; ... but we desire more than this.” CGRRLL 105.8

How much more? Still he continues:— CGRRLL 106.1

“A law forbidding all carrier delivery of mail on Sunday, would be better than nothing; but we want more than that.” CGRRLL 106.2

Then he says:— CGRRLL 106.3

“What we ask is a law instructing the Postmaster-General to make no further contracts which shall include the carriage of mails on the Sabbath, and to provide that hereafter no mail matter shall be collected or distributed on that day.” CGRRLL 106.4

But when they shall have secured the help of the Government in carrying their monopolizing ambition thus far, will they be content?—Not at all. Nothing short of a complete and perpetual monopoly will satisfy them. This is proved by Dr. McAllister’s words at Lakeside, Ohio, July, 1857, as follows:— CGRRLL 106.5

“Let a man be what he may,—Jew, seventh-day observer of some other denomination, or those who do not believe in the Christian Sabbath,—let the law apply to every one, that there shall be no public desecration of the first day of the week, the Christian Sabbath, the day of rest for the nation. They may hold any other day of the week as sacred, and observe it; but that day which is the one day in seven for the nation at large, let that not be publicly desecrated by any one, by officer in the Government, or by private citizen, high or low, rich or poor.” CGRRLL 106.6

There is much being said of the grasping, grinding greed of monopolies of many kinds; but of all monopolies on earth, the most grinding, the most greedy, the most oppressive, the most conscienceless, is a religious monopoly. CGRRLL 106.7

When they shall have stopped all Sunday papers, and all Sunday trains, in order that the people may go to church and attend to things divine, suppose that then the people fail to go to church or attend to things divine: will the religio-political managers stop there? Having done all this people may be devoted, will they suffer their good intentions to be frustrated, or their good offices to be despised? Will not these now take the next logical step, the step that was taken in the fourth century, and compel men to attend to things divine? If not, why not? Having taken all the steps but this, will they not take this?—They will. Human nature is the same now as it was in the fourth century. Politics is the same now as it was then. And as for religious bigotry, it knows no centuries; it knows no such thing as progress or enlightenment; it is ever the same. And in its control of civil power, the cruel results are also ever the same. CGRRLL 106.8

This probability is made yet more certain by the fact that the theory which is the basis of all this legislation, is also identical with that of the religio-political element in the fourth century. A theocratical theory of government was the basis of the religious legislation in the fourth century; it is the same now. The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union is the most active and influential body in the Sunday-law movement now. The great majority of the petitions for the Blair Sunday law, except that of their seven-million-two-hundred-thousand-times-multiplied Cardinal, have been secured by the W. C. T. U.; and for convenience’ sake we shall here repeat some quotations already given, showing the theory and purpose which that organization has in a view:— CGRRLL 107.1

“A true theocracy is yet to come, and the enthronement of Christ in law and law-makers; hence I pray devoutly as a Christian patriot, for the ballot in the hands of women, and rejoice that the National Christian Temperance Union has so long championed this cause.” CGRRLL 107.2

“The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, local, State, national, and world-wide, has one vital, organic thought, one all absorbing purpose, one underlying 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 courts, its camps, it 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 gate-way of politics...We pray Heaven to give them [the old parties] no rest ...until they shall ...swear an oath of allegiance to Christ in politics, and march in one great army up to the polls to worship God.”—President’s Annual Address in Convention, Nashville, 1887. CGRRLL 107.3

We have before shown that the W. C. T. U. is allied with the National Reform Association, and that their object is declared to be, upon a theocratical theory, to turn this republic into a kingdom of God. In the Cincinnati National Reform convention, 1872, Prof. J. R. Sloane, D. D., said:— CGRRLL 108.1

“Every government by equitable laws, is a government of God. A republic thus governed is of Him, the people, and is as truly and really as the commonwealth of Israel.” CGRRLL 108.2

By the expression “government by equitable laws,” Mr. Sloane and the National Reformers generally mean such a government as the National Reformers seek to have established. According to their theory, our Government as it is, is not a government by equitable laws, but is entirely founded upon infidel and atheistic ideas. Consequently they want the Constitution religiously amended, and framed upon their ideas; then it will be a government by equitable laws, and will be as truly and really a theocracy as was the commonwealth of Israel.” CGRRLL 108.3

The Sunday-law Association also holds much the same theory. In the Elgin Sunday-law convention, Dr. Mandeville, of Chicago, said:— CGRRLL 108.4

“The merchants of Tyre insisted upon selling goods near the temple on the Sabbath, and compelled do their duty, and stop it. So we can compel the officers of the law to do their duty.” CGRRLL 108.5

Now Nehemiah was ruling there in a true theocracy, a government of God; the law of God was the law of the land, and God’s will was made known by the written word, and by the prophets. Therefore if Dr. Mandeville’s argument is of any force at all, it is so only upon the claim of Dr. Crafts agrees precisely, and Dr. Crafts secretary for the National Sunday-law Union. He claims as expressed in his own words, that— CGRRLL 109.1

“The preachers are the successors of the prophets.”—Christian Statesman, July 5, 1888. CGRRLL 109.2

Now put these things together. The government of Israel was a theocracy; the will of God was made known to the ruler by prophets; the ruler compelled the officers of the law to prevent the ungodly from selling goods on the Sabbath. This government is to be made a theocracy; the preachers are the successors of the prophets; and they are to compel the officers of the to prevent all selling of goods and all manner of work on Sunday. This shows conclusively that these preachers tend to take the supremacy into their hands, officially declare the will of God, and compel all men to conform to it. And this deduction is made certain by the words of Prof. Blanchard, in the Elgin convention:— CGRRLL 109.3

“In this work we are undertaking for the Sabbath, we are the representatives of God.” CGRRLL 109.4

And the chief of these representatives of God, will be but a pope again; because when preachers control the civil power as the representatives of God, a pope is inevitable. CGRRLL 109.5

These quotations prove, to a demonstration, that the whole theory upon which this religio-political movement is based, is identical with that of the fourth century, which established the papacy. They show also that the means employed—Sunday laws—by which to gain control of the civil power to make the wicked theory effective, are identical with the means which were employed in the fourth century for the same purpose. The next question is, Will they carry the theory into effect as they did in the fourth century and onward? In other words, when they get the power to oppress, will they use the power? A sufficient answer to this would seem to be the simple inquiry, If they do not intend to use the power, then why are they making such strenuous efforts to get it? But we are not left to this inquiry for an answer to the question; we have some of their own words. We may first refer the reader again to the quotations from the National Reformers on pages 51-56. And the quotations apply with special force to the question of Sunday observance; for they declare that— CGRRLL 109.6

“The observance of the Sabbath [Sunday] is an acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of God over us.” CGRRLL 110.1

Then when they secure the law, it will be a national acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of God; and for any one to refuse to keep Sunday, will be treason, as declared by one of their own preachers (Rev. W. M. Grier, of Due West, South Carolina) in the Philadelphia convention, 1888:— CGRRLL 110.2

“Every sin, secret or public, against God, is a sin against our country, and is high treason against the State.”—Christian Statesman, August 9, 1888. CGRRLL 110.3

Every sin, whether “secret or public,” being “high treason” against the State, the State must punish it, even secret sin. But how shall the State discover secret sins, except by an Inquisition? This again confirms the logic of the theocratical theory of earthly government—that the Inquisition is the inevitable consequence. CGRRLL 110.4

Then so far as the National Reformers are concerned, it is certain that they are ready to use the power which they are doing their best to secure. CGRRLL 111.1

In the Elgin convention, Dr. Mandeville said further on the subject of Sunday laws:— CGRRLL 111.2

“When the church of God awakes and does its duty on one side, and the State on the other, we shall have no further trouble in this matter.” CGRRLL 111.3

Yes, we remember how it was before, when the church and the State were united. The gentle Albigenses in Southern France greatly disturbed the church. But the church was wide awake; for Innocent III. was pope. Philip Augustus was king of France; and the church awoke the State with the cry, “Up, most Christian king! up, and aid us in our work of vengeance!” And thus, with the energy of the pope on one side, and of Philip on the other, the soldiers of Philip marched down upon the Albigenses, and swept them from the earth. And as “the church did its duty on one side and the State on the other,” there was no further trouble in the matter. CGRRLL 111.4

In September, 1888, a minister in Selma, Cal., preaching on the subject of Sunday temperance and Sunday prohibition, said:— CGRRLL 111.5

“We have laws to punish the man who steals our eve property; but we have no law to prevent people from working on Sunday. It is right that the thief be punished; but I have more sympathy for that man than I have for him that works on that day.” CGRRLL 111.6

Let that man have control of the power to compel a man to keep Sunday, and he will punish the man who works on Sunday, just as he would a thief. CGRRLL 111.7

At a National Reform W. C. T. U. convention held at Lakeside, Ohio, in 1887, the following question was asked:— CGRRLL 111.8

“Will not the National Reform movement result in persecution against those who on some points believe differently from the majority, even as the recognition of the Christian religion by the majority, even as the recognition of the Christian religion by the Roman power resulted in grievous persecution against true Christians?” CGRRLL 112.1

Answer, by Dr. McAllister:— CGRRLL 112.2

“Now notice the fallacy here. The recognition of the Roman Catholic religion by the State, made that State a persecuting power. Why?—Because the Roman Catholic religion is a persecuting religion. If true Christianity is a persecuting religion, then the acknowledgment of our principles by the State will make the State a persecutor. But if the true Christian religion is a religion of liberty, a religion that regards the rights of all, then the acknowledgment of those principles by the State will make the State the guardian of all men, and the State will be no persecutor. True religion never persecutes.” CGRRLL 112.3

There is indeed a fallacy here; but it is not in the question; it is in the answer. That which made the Roman State a persecuting power, says the Doctor, was its recognition of the Catholic religion, “which is a persecuting religion.” But the Roman Catholic religion is not the only persecuting religion that has been in the world. Presbyterianism persecuted while John Calvin ruled in Geneva; it persecuted while the Covenanters ruled in Scotland; it persecuted while it held the power in England. Congregationalism persecuted while it had the power in New England. Episcopalianism persecuted in England and in Virginia. Every religion that has been allied with the civil power, or that has controlled the civil power, has been a persecuting religion; and such will always be the case. Mr. Mc Allister’s implied statement is true, that “true Christianity never persecutes;” but it is true only because true Christianity never will allow itself to be allied in any way with the civil power, or to receive any support from it. The National Reform Association does propose to “enforce upon all, the laws of Christian morality;” it proposes to have the Government adopt the National Reform religion, and then “lay its hand upon any religion that does not conform to it;” and it asserts that the civil power has the right “to command the consciences of men.” Now any such thing carried into effect as is here plainly proposed by that Association, can never be anything else than persecution. But Mr. McAllister affirms that the National Reform movement, if successful, would not lead to persecution, “because true religion never persecutes.” The Doctor’s argument amounts only to this: The National Reform religion is the true religion. True religion never persecutes. Therefore to compel men to conform to the true religion,—that is, the religion that controls the civil power,—is not persecution. CGRRLL 112.4

In A. D. 556, Pope Pelagius called upon Narses to compel certain parties to obey the pope’s command. Narses refused, on the ground that it would be persecution. The pope answer Narses’s objection with this argument:— CGRRLL 113.1

“Be not alarmed at the idle talk of some, crying out against persecution, and reproaching the church, as if she delighted in cruelty, when she punishes evil with wholesome severities, or procures the salvation of souls. He alone persecutes who forces to evil. But to restrain men from doing evil, or to punish those who have done it, is not persecution, or cruelty, but love of mankind.”—Bower’s History of the Popes, Pelagius, A. D. 556. CGRRLL 113.2

Compare this with Dr. McAllister’s answer, and find any difference, in principle, between them, who can. There is no difference. The argument is identical. It is the essential spirit of the papacy which is displayed in both, and in that of Pope Pelagius no more than in that of Dr. McAllister. CGRRLL 113.3

Another question, or rather statement, was this:— CGRRLL 114.1

“There is a law in the State of Arkansas enforcing Sunday observance upon the people, and the result has been that many good persons have not only been imprisoned, but have lost their property, and even their lives.” CGRRLL 114.2

Answer, by Dr. Mc Allister:— CGRRLL 114.3

“It is better that a few should suffer, than that the whole nation should lose its Sabbath.” CGRRLL 114.4

This argument is identical with that by which the Pharisees in Christ’s day justified themselves in killing him. It was said:— CGRRLL 114.5

“It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” John 11:50. CGRRLL 114.6

And then says the record:— CGRRLL 114.7

“Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.” Verse 53. CGRRLL 114.8

The argument used in support of the claim of right to use this power, is identical with that used by the papacy in inaugurating her persecutions; the argument in justification of the use of the power, is identical with that by which the murderers of Jesus Christ justified themselves in accomplishing that wicked deed; and if anybody thinks that these men in our day, proceeding upon the identical theory, in the identical way, and justifying their proceedings by arguments identical with those of the papacy and the murderous Pharisees,—if anybody thinks that these men will stop short of persecution, he has vastly more confidence in apostate humanity than we have. CGRRLL 114.9

Nor are we left wholly to logical deduction in this. Dec. 14, 1887, Rev. W. T. Mc Connell, of Youngstown, Ohio, published in the Christian Nation an open letter to the editor of the American Sentinel, in which he said:— CGRRLL 114.10

“You look for trouble in this land in the future, if these principles are applied. I think it will come to you, if you maintain your present position. The fool-hardy fellow who persists in standing on a railroad track, may well anticipate trouble when he hears the rumble of the coming train. If he shall read the signs of the times in the screaming whistle and flaming head-light, he may change his position and avoid the danger; but if he won’t be influenced by these, his most gloomy forebodings of trouble will be realized when the express strikes him. So you, neighbor, if, through prejudice or the enmity of unregenerate hearts, you have determined to oppose the progress of this nation in fulfilling its vocation as an instrument in the divine work of regenerating human society, may rightly expect trouble. It will be sure to come to you.” CGRRLL 115.1

Certainly it will. That is the spirit of the wicked scheme from the first effort ever made to secure a Sunday law unto this last. CGRRLL 115.2

We need not multiply evidences further, to show that this whole reiigio-political Sunday-law movement of our day is of the same piece with that in the fourth century. The theory is the same; the means and the arguments are the same in both; and two things that are so precisely alike in the making, will be exactly alike when they are made. That in the fourth century made the papacy; and this in the nineteenth century will make a living likeness of the papacy. CGRRLL 115.3

Sunday has no basis whatever as a civil institution; it never had any. And the only basis it has, or ever had, as a religious institution, is the authority of the papacy. This is both the law and the literal truth in the case. CGRRLL 115.4

It was perfectly in order, therefore, for Cardinal Gibbons to endorse a movement to give to Sunday the legal sanction and support of the United States Government and thus secure the government recognition of the authority of the papacy. The Cardinal’s endorsement has been heralded by the Sunday-law workers throughout the length and breadth of the land, as a mighty accession; but to what purpose? The following letter from the Cardinal to Mr. E. E. Franke, of Pittsburg, Pa., will show:—“CARDINAL’S RESIDENCE, 408 NORTH CHARLES ST., BALTIMORE, MD. CGRRLL 115.5

Oct. 3, 1889.

“DEAR MR. FRANKE: At the request of His Eminence, the Cardinal, I write to assure you that you are correct in your assertion that Protestants in observing the Sunday are following, not the Bible, which they take as their only rule of action, but the tradition of the church. I defy them to point out to me the word Sunday in the Bible; if it is not to be found there, and it cannot be, then it is not the Bible which they follow in this particular instance, but tradition, and in this they flatly contradict themselves. CGRRLL 116.1

“The Catholic Church changed the day of rest from the last day of the week, because the most memorable of Christ’s works was accomplished on Sunday. It is needless for me to enter into any elaborate proof of the matter. They cannot prove their point from Scripture; therefore, if sincere, they must acknowledge that they draw their observance of the Sunday from tradition, and are therefore weekly contradicting themselves. “Yours very sincerely, M. A. REARDON.” CGRRLL 116.2

This shows that it is as a Roman Catholic, securing honor to an institution of the papacy, and thus to the papacy itself, that Cardinal Gibbons has endorsed the national Sunday-law movement. The Cardinal understands what he is doing a great deal better than M. Crafts, Mrs. Bateham, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Breckenridge understand what they are doing. And further, the Cardinal understands what they are doing a great deal better than they themselves do. This also shows that those who sign the petition for a Sunday law, as the Cardinal did, are honoring the papacy, as the Cardinal does. CGRRLL 116.3