Last File / Back to NSL Index / Next File

         File 2, pages 9-30

The National Sunday Law


    Senator Blair. —There are gentlemen present who wish to be heard in opposition to the bill. Prof. Alonzo T. Jones, of Battle Creek College, Mich., is one of those who have spoken to me in regard to it. Will you not state, Prof. Jones, what your desire is? I have no doubt that we can obtain leave of the Senate to sit during its session to-day. It is exceedingly desirable to go on with this hearing, and complete it now. How would such an arrangement comport with your convenience? First, state, please, whom you represent, and your reasons for desiring to be heard.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 9.1}
    Mr. Jones. —Mr. Chairman, I represent the people known as Seventh-day Adventists. It is true, we have been entirely ignored by the other side. The very small “sect,” as they stated it, of Seventh-day Baptists has been recognized, but we are more than three times their number, and many times their power in the real force of our work. We have organizations in every State and Territory in the Union. We have the largest printing-house in Michigan; the largest printing-house on the Pacific Coast; the largest Sanitarium in the world; a college in California and one in Michigan; an academy in Massachusetts; a printing establishment in Basel, Switzerland; one in Christiana,

Norway; and one in Melbourne, Australia. Our mission work has enlarged until, besides embracing the greater part of Europe, it has also extended nearly around the world; and we desire a hearing, with the consent of the Committee.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 9.2}
    Senator Blair. —Where do you reside?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 10.1}
    Mr. Jones. —At present in Michigan. My home for the past four years has been in California. I am now teaching history in Battle Creek College, Mich.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 10.2}
    I must say in justice to myself, and also in behalf of the body which I represent, that we dissent almost wholly, I might say, wholly, from the position taken by the representative of the Seventh-day Baptists. I knew, the instant that Dr. Lewis stated what he did here, that he had “given his case away.” We have not given our case away, Senators, nor do we expect to give it away. We expect to go deeper than any have gone at this hearing, both upon the principles and upon the facts, as well as upon the logic of the facts.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 10.3}
    Senator Blair. —This matter is all familiar to you. You are a professor of history. Can you not go on this afternoon?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 10.4}
    Mr. Jones. —Yes, if I can have a little space between now and this afternoon to get my papers together. I have some references to read that I did not bring with me this morning.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 10.5}
    Senator Blair. —Very well.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 10.6}


    Senator Blair. —You have a full hour, Professor. It is now half past one.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 10.7}
    Mr. Jones. —There are three particular lines in which I wish to conduct the argument: First, the

principles upon which we stand; second, the historical view; and, third, the practical aspect of the question.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 10.8}
    The principle upon which we stand is that civil government is civil, and has nothing to do in the matter of legislation, with religious observances in any way. The basis of this is found in the words of Jesus Christ in Matt. 22:21. When the Pharisees asked whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not, he replied: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 11.1}
    In this the Saviour certainly separated that which pertains to Caesar from that which pertains to God. We are not to render to Caesar that which pertains to God; we are not to render to God by Caesar that which is God’s.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 11.2}
    Senator Blair. —May not the thing due to Caesar be due to God also?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 11.3}
    Mr. Jones. —No, sir. If that be so, then the Saviour did entangle himself in his talk, the very thing which they wanted him to do. The record says that they sought “how they might entangle him in his talk.” Having drawn the distinction which he has, between that which belongs to Caesar and that which belongs to God, if it be true that the same things belong to both, then he did entangle himself in his talk; and where is the force in his words which command us to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to God the things that are God’s?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 11.4}
    Senator Blair. —Is it not a requirement of God’s that we render to Caesar that which is due to Caesar?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 11.5}
    Mr. Jones. —Yes.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 11.6}
    Senator Blair. —If Caesar is society, and the Sabbath is required for the good of society, does not God require

us to establish the Sabbath for the good of society? and if society makes a law accordingly, is it not binding?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 11.7}
    Mr. Jones. —It is for the good of society that men shall be Christians; but it is not in the province of the State to make Christians. For the State to undertake to do so would not be for the benefit of society; it never has been, and it never can be.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 12.1}
    Senator Blair. —Do you not confuse this matter? A thing may be required for the good of society, and for that very reason be in accordance with the will and the command of God. God issues his commands for the good of society, does he not? God does not give us commands that have no relation to the good of society.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 12.2}
    Mr. Jones. —His commands are for the good of man.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 12.3}
    Senator Blair. —Man is society. It is made up of individual men.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 12.4}
    Mr. Jones. —But in that which God has issued to man for the good of men he has given those things which pertain solely to man’s relationship to his God; and he has also given things which pertain to man’s relationship to his fellow-men. With those things in which our duty pertains to our fellow-men, civil government can have something to do.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 12.5}
    Senator Blair. —Man would obey God in obeying civil society.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 12.6}
    Mr. Jones. —I will come to that point. In the things which pertain to our duty to God, with the individual’s right of serving God as one’s conscience dictates, society has nothing to do; but in the formation of civil society, there are certain rights surrendered to the society by the individual, without which society could not be organized.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 12.7}

    Senator Blair. —That is not conceded. When was this doctrine of a compact in society made? It is the philosophy of an infidel.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.1}
    Mr. Jones. —It is made wherever you find men together.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.2}
    Senator Blair. —Did you and I ever agree to it? Did it bind us before we were compos mentis?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.3}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly. Civil government is an ordinance of God.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.4}
    Senator Blair. —Then it is not necessarily an agreement of man?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.5}
    Mr. Jones. —Yes, sir, it springs from the people.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.6}
    Senator Blair. —As to the compact in society that is talked about, it is not conceded that it is a matter of personal and individual agreement. Society exists altogether independent of the volition of those who enter into it. However, I shall not interrupt you further. I only did this because of our private conversation, in which I thought you labored under a fallacy in your fundamental proposition, that would lead all the way through your argument. I suggested that ground, and that is all.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.7}
    Mr. Jones. —I think the statement of the Declaration of Independence is true, that “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.8}
    Senator Blair. —I do not controvert that.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.9}
    Mr. Jones. —Of all men in the world, Americans ought to be the last to deny the social compact theory of civil government. On board the “Mayflower,” before the Pilgrim Fathers ever set foot on these shores, the following was written:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.10}
    “In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign,

Lord King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid: and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November, in the reign of our sovereign, Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland, the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini, 1620.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 13.11}
    The next American record is that of the fundamental orders of Connecticut, 1638-39, and reads as follows:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 14.1}
    “Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne prudence so to order and dispose of things that we, the inhabitants and residents of Windsor, and Harteford, and Wethersfield, are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the river of Conectecotte and the lands thereunto adioyneing; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent gourment established acording to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons, as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne ourselues to be as one publike State or commonwelth; and doe for ourselues and our successors and such as shall adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into combination and confederation together,” etc.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 14.2}

    And, sir, the first Constitution of your own State —1784— in its bill of rights, declares:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 15.1}
    “I. All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 15.2}
    “III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender some of their natural rights to that society, in order to insure the protection of others; and without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 15.3}
    “IV. Among the natural rights, some are in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be received for them. Of this kind are the rights of conscience.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 15.4}
    And in Part 2, of that some Constitution, under the division of the “form of government,” are these words:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 15.5}
    “The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or State, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 15.6}
    In the Constitution of New Hampshire of 1792, these articles are repeated word for word. They remain there without alteration in a single letter under the ratification of 1852, and also under the ratification of 1877. Consequently, sir, the very State which sends you to this capitol is founded upon the very theory which you here deny. This is the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence; it is the doctrine of the Scripture; and therefore we hold it to be eternally true.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 15.7}
    These sound and genuine American principles —civil governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and the inalienability of the

rights of conscience, —these are the principles asserted and maintained by Seventh-day Adventists.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 15.8}
    Senator Blair. —But society is behind the government which society creates.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 16.1}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly. All civil government springs from the people, I care not in what form it is.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 16.2}
    Senator Blair. —That is all agreed to.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 16.3}
    Mr. Jones. —But the people, I care not how many there are, have no right to invade your relationship to God, nor mine. That rests between the individual and God, through faith in Jesus Christ; and as the Saviour has made this distinction between that which pertains to Caesar and that which is God’s, when Caesar exacts of men that which pertains to God, then Caesar is out of his place, and in so far as Caesar is obeyed there, God is denied. When Caesar —civil government— exacts of men that which is God’s, he demands what does not belong to him; in so doing Caesar usurps the place and the prerogative of God, and every man who regards God or his own rights before God, will disregard all such interference on the part of Caesar.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 16.4}
    This argument is confirmed by the apostle’s commentary upon Christ’s words. In Rom. 13:1-9, is written:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 16.5}
    “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye

must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 16.6}
    It is easy to see that this scripture is but an exposition of Christ’s words, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” In the Saviour’s command to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, there is plainly a recognition of the rightfulness of civil government, and that civil government has claims upon us which we are in duty bound to recognize, and that there are things which duty requires us to render to the civil government. This scripture in Romans 13 simply states the same thing in other words: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 17.1}
    Again: the Saviour’s words were in answer to a question concerning tribute. They said to him, “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” Rom. 13:6 refers to the same thing, saying, “For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.” In answer to the question of the Pharisees about the tribute, Christ said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” Rom. 13:7, taking up the same thought, says, “Render therefore to all their dues:

tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” These references make positive that which we have stated, —that this portion of Scripture (Rom. 13:1-9) is a divine commentary upon the words of Christ in Matt. 22:17-21.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 17.2}
    The passage refers first to civil government, the higher powers, —the powers that be. Next it speaks of rulers, as bearing the sword and attending upon matters of tribute. Then it commands to render tribute to whom tribute is due, and says, “Owe no man anything; but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” [Rom 13:8] Then he refers to the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments, and says, “It there by any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 18.1}
    There are other commandments of this same law to which Paul refers. There are the four commandments of the first table of the law, —the commandments which say, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me;” “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or nay likeness of anything;” “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;” “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” [Ex 20:8-11.] Then there is the other commandment in which are briefly comprehended all these, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” [Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37]  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 18.2}
    Paul knew full well these commandments. Why, then, did he say, “If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?” [Rom 13:9] —Because he was writing concerning the principles set forth by the Saviour, which relate to our duties to civil government.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 18.3}

    Our duties under civil government pertain solely to the government and to our fellow-men, because the powers of civil government pertain solely to men in their relations one to another, and to the government. But the Saviour’s words in the same connection entirely separated that which pertains to God from that which pertains to civil government. The things which pertain to God are not to be rendered to civil government —to the powers that be; therefore Paul, although knowing full well that there were other commandments, said, “If there be any other commandment,” it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;” that is, if there be any other commandment which comes into the relation between man and civil government, it is comprehended in this saying, that he shall love his neighbor as himself; thus showing conclusively that the powers that be, though ordained of God, are so ordained simply in things pertaining to the relation of man with his fellow-men, and in those things alone.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 19.1}
    Further: as in this divine record of the duties that men over to the powers that be, there is no reference whatever to the first table of the law, it therefore follows that the powers that be, although ordained of God, have nothing whatever to do with the relations which men bear toward God.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 19.2}
    As the ten commandments contain the whole duty of man, and as in the enumeration here given of the duties that men owe to the powers that be, there is no mention of any of the things contained in the first table of the law, it follows that none of the duties enjoined in the first table of the law of God, do men owe to the powers that be; that is to say, again, that the powers that be, although ordained of God, are not ordained of God in anything pertaining to a single duty

enjoined in anyone of the first four of the ten commandments. These are duties that men owe to God, and with those the powers that be can of right have nothing to do, because Christ has commanded to render unto God —not to Caesar, nor by Caesar— that which is God’s. Therefore, as in his comment upon the principle which Christ established, Paul has left out of the account the first four commandments, so we deny, forever, the right of any civil government to legislate in anything that pertains to men’s duty to God under the first four commandments. This Sunday bill does propose to legislate in regard to the Lord’s day. If it is the Lord’s day, we are to render it to the Lord, not to Caesar. When Caesar exacts it of us, he is exacting what does not belong to him, and is demanding of us that with which he should have nothing to do.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 19.3}
    Senator Blair. —Would it answer your objection in that regard, if, instead of saying “the Lord’s day,” we should say, “Sunday?”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 20.1}
    Mr. Jones. —No, sir, Because the underlying principle, the sole basis, of Sunday, is ecclesiastical, and legislation in regard to it is ecclesiastical legislation. I shall come more fully to the question you ask, presently.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 20.2}
    Now do not misunderstand us on this point. We are Seventh-day Adventists; but if this bill were in favor of enforcing the observance of the seventh day as the Lord’s day, we would oppose it just as much as we oppose it as it is now, for the reason that civil government has nothing to do with what we owe to God, or whether we owe anything or not, or whether we pay it or not.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 20.3}
    Allow me again to refer to the words of Christ to emphasize this point. At that time the question was

upon the subject of tribute, whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not. In answering the question, Christ established this principle: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” [Matt 22:21] That tribute money was Caesar’s; it bore his image and superscription; it was to be rendered to him. Now, it is a question of rendering Sabbath observance, and it is a perfectly legitimate and indeed a necessary question to ask right here: Is it lawful to render Lord’s day observance to Caesar? The reply may be in His own words: Show me the Lord’s day; whose image and superscription does it bear? —The Lord’s, to be sure. This very bill which is under discussion here to-day declares it to be the Lord’s day. Then the words of Christ apply to this. Bearing the image and superscription of the Lord, Render therefore to the Lord the things that are the Lord’s, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. It does not bear the image and superscription of Caesar; it does not belong to him; it is not to be rendered to him.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 20.4}
    Again: take the institution under the word Sabbath: Is it lawful to render Sabbath observance to Caesar or not? Show us the Sabbath; whose image and superscription does it bear? The commandment of God says, it “is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” It bears his image and superscription, and his only; it belongs wholly to him; Caesar can have nothing to do with it. It does not belong to Caesar; its observance cannot be rendered to Caesar, but only to God; for the commandment is, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” [Ex 20:8-11.] If it is not kept holy, it is not kept at all. Therefore, belonging to God, bearing his superscription, and not that of Caesar, according to Christ’s commandment,

it is to be rendered only to God; because we are to render to God that which is God’s, and the Sabbath is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Sabbath observance, therefore, or Lord’s day observance, whichever you may choose to call it, never can be rendered to Caesar. And Caesar never can demand it without demanding that which belongs to God, or without putting himself in the place of God, and usurping the prerogative of God.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 21.1}
    Therefore, we say that if this bill were framed in behalf of the real Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, the day which we observe; if this bill proposed to promote its observance, or to compel men to do no work upon that day we would oppose it just as strongly as we oppose it now, and I would stand here at this table and argue precisely as I am arguing against this, and upon the same principle, —the principle established by Jesus Christ, —that with that which is God’s the civil government never can of right have anything to do. That duty rests solely between man and God; and if any man does not render it to God, he is responsible only to God, and not to any man, nor to any assembly or organization of men, for his failure or refusal to render it to God; and any power that undertakes to punish that man for his failure or refusal to render to God what is God’s, puts itself in the place of God. Any government which attempts it, sets itself against the word of Christ, and is therefore antichristian. This Sunday bill proposes to have this Government do just that thing, and therefore I say, without any reflection upon the author of the bill, this national Sunday bill which is under discussion here to-day is antichristian. But in saying this I am not singling out this contemplated law as worse than all other Sunday

laws in the world. There never was a Sunday law that was not antichristian. and there never can be one that will not be antichristian.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 22.1}
    Senator Blair. —You oppose all the Sunday laws of the country, then?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 23.1}
    Mr. Jones. —Yes, sir.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 23.2}
    Senator Blair. —You are against all Sunday laws?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 23.3}
    Mr. Jones. —Yes, sir; we are against every Sunday law that was ever made in this world, from the first enacted by Constantine to this one now proposed; and we would be equally against a Sabbath law if it were proposed, for that would be antichristian, too.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 23.4}
    Senator Blair. —State and national, alike?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 23.5}
    Mr. Jones. —State and national, sir. I shall give you historical reasons presently, and the facts upon which these things stand, and I hope they will receive consideration.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 23.6}
    George Washington, I believe, is yet held in some respectful consideration —he is by the Seventh-day Adventists at least— and he said, “Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and is to be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.” And so should we be protected, so long as we are law-abiding citizens. There are no saloon keepers among us. We are as a body for prohibition; and as for the principles of Christian temperance, we conscientiously practice them. In short, you will find no people in this country or in the world, more peaceable and law-abiding than we endeavor to be. We teach the people according to the Scripture, to be subject to the powers that be; we teach them that the highest duty of the Christian citizen is strictly to obey the law, —to obey it not from fear of punishment, but out of respect

for governmental authority, and out of respect for God, and conscience towards him.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 23.7}
    Senator Blair. —That is the common Mormon argument. The Mormons say their institution is a matter of religious belief. Everybody concedes their right to believe in Mormonism, but when they come to the point of practicing it, will it not be to the disturbance of others?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 24.1}
    Mr. Jones. —I should have come to that, even though you had not asked the question. But as you have introduced it, I will notice it now. My argument throughout is that the civil government can never have anything to do with men’s duties under the first four of the ten commandments; and this is the argument embodied in Washington’s words. These duties pertain solely to God. Now polygamy is adultery. But adultery is not a duty that men owe to God, in any way, much less does it come under any of the first four commandments. This comes within the inhibitions of the second table of the law of God —the commandments embracing duty to our neighbor. How men should conduct themselves toward their fellow-men, civil government must decide; that is the very purpose of its existence. Consequently, the practice of polygamy lying wholly within this realm, is properly subject to the jurisdiction of civil government. My argument does not in the least degree countenance the principles of Mormonism, nor can it fairly be made to do so. I know that it is offered as a very ready objection; but those who offer it as an objection and as an argument against the principles upon which we stand, thereby make adultery a religious practice. But against all such objection and argument, I maintain that adultery is not in any sense a religious practice. It is not only highly irreligious,

but it is essentially uncivil; and because it is uncivil, the civil power has as much right to blot it out as it has to punish murder, or thieving, or perjury, or any other uncivil thing. Moreover, we deny that honest occupations on any day of the week, or at any time whatever, can ever properly be classed with adultery.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 24.2}
    There are also people who believe in community of property in this world. Suppose they base their principles of having all things in common upon the apostolic example. Very good. They have the right to do that. Everyone who sells his property and puts it into a common fund, has a right to do that if he chooses; but suppose these men in carrying out that principle, and in claiming that it is a religious ordinance, were to take without consent your property or mine into their community. Then what? —The State forbids it. It does not forbid the exercise of their religion; but it protects your property and mine, and in exercising its prerogative of protection, it forbids theft. And in forbidding theft, the State never asks any questions as to whether thieving is a religious practice. So also as to polygamy, which is practiced among the Mormons. But let us consider this in another view.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 25.1}
    It is every man’s right in this country, or anywhere else, to worship an idol if he chooses. That idol embodies his conviction of what God is. He can worship only according to his convictions. It matters not what form his idol may have, he has the right to worship it anywhere in all the world, therefore in the United States. But suppose that in the worship of that god he attempts to take the life of one of his fellow-men, and offer it as a human sacrifice. The civil government exists for the protection of life, liberty, property, etc., and it must punish that man for his attempt upon the life of

his fellow-man. The civil law protects man’s life from such exercise of anyone’s religion, but in punishing the offender, the State does not consider the question of his religion at all. It would punish him just the same if he made no pretensions to worship or to religion. It punishes him for his incivility, for his attempt at murder, not for his irreligion. I repeat, the question of religion is not considered by the State; the sole question is, Did he threaten the life of his fellow-man? Civil government must protect its citizens. This is strictly within Caesar’s jurisdiction; it comes within the line of duties which the Scripture shows to pertain to our neighbor, and with it Caesar has to do.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 25.2}
    Therefore it is true that the State can never of right legislate in regard to any man’s religious faith, or in relation to anything in the first four commandments of the Decalogue. But if in the exercise of his religious convictions under the first four commandments, a man invades the rights of his neighbor, as to life, family, property, or character, then the civil government says that it is unlawful. Why? Because it is irreligious or immoral? —Not at all; but because it is uncivil, and for that reason only. It never can be proper for the State to ask any question as to whether any man is religious or not, or whether his actions are religious or not. The sole question must ever be, Is the action civil or uncivil.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 26.1}
    Senator Blair. —Now apply that right to this case —to the institution of the Sabbath among men for the good of men.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 26.2}
    Mr. Jones. —Very good, we will consider that. Here are persons who are keeping Sunday. It is their right to work on every other day of the week. It is their right to work on that day, if they desire; but they

are keeping that day, recognizing it as the Sabbath. Now while they are doing that which is their right, here are other people who are keeping Saturday, and others who are keeping Friday. The Mohammedans recognize Friday. But we will confine ourselves to those who keep Saturday, the seventh day, as the Sabbath. Those who keep Sunday, and who want legislation for that day, ask that other people shall be forbidden to work on Sunday, because they say it disturbs their rest, it disturbs their worship, etc.; and they claim that their rights are not properly protected. Do they really believe that in principle? Let us see. They will never admit (at any rate, I have never yet found one of them who would) that their work on Saturday disturbs the rest, or the worship, of the man who rests on Saturday. If their work on Saturday does not disturb the Sabbath rest, or the worship, of the man who keeps Saturday, then upon what principle is it that our work on Sunday disturbs the rest of those who keep Sunday? I have never found one on that side yet who would admit the principle. If their work does not disturb our rest and our worship, our work cannot disturb their rest or their worship. More than this: In a general Sunday convention held in San Francisco, at which I was present, there was a person who spoke on this very question. Said he: “There are some people, and a good many of them in this State, who do not believe in Sunday laws, and who keep Saturday as the Sabbath; but,” said he, “the majority must rule. The vast majority of the people do keep Sunday; their rights must be respected, and they have a right to enact it into law.” I arose and said, “Suppose the Seventh-day people were in the majority, and they should go to the legislature and ask for a law to compel you to keep

Saturday out of respect to their rights. Would you consider it right?” There was a murmur all over the house, “No.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 26.3}
    Senator Blair. —Upon what ground did they say, No?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 28.1}
    Mr. Jones. —That is what I should like to know. They were not logical. Their answer shows that there is no ground in justice nor in right for their claim that the majority should rule in matters of conscience.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 28.2}
    Senator Blair. —That does not follow. At least it does not strike me that it follows. The majority has a right to rule in what pertains to the regulation of society, and if Caesar regulates society, then the majority has a right in this country to say what we shall render to Caesar.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 28.3}
    Mr. Jones. —Very good, but the majority has no right to say what we shall render to God; nor has it any right to say that we shall render to Caesar that which is God’s. If nine hundred and ninety-nine out of everyone thousand people in the United States kept the seventh day, that is, Saturday, and I deemed it my right, and made it my choice, to keep Sunday, they would have not right to compel me to rest on Saturday.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 28.4}
    Senator Blair. —In other words, you take the ground that for the good of society, irrespective of the religious aspect of the question, society may not require abstinence from labor on Sabbath, if it disturbs others?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 28.5}
    Mr. Jones. —As to its disturbing others, I have proved that it does not. They body of your question states my position exactly.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 28.6}
    Senator Blair. —You are logical all the way through that there shall be no Sabbath. This question was passed me to ask: “Is the speaker also opposed to all laws against blasphemy?”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 28.7}

    Mr. Jones. —Yes, sir. But not because blasphemy is not wrong, but because civil government cannot define blasphemy, nor punish it. Blasphemy pertains to God, it is an offense against him, it is a sin against him.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 29.1}
    Senator Blair. —Suppose the practice of it in society at large is hurtful to society?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 29.2}
    Mr. Jones. —That will have to be explained. How is it hurtful to society?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 29.3}
    Senator Blair. —Suppose it be hurtful to society in this way: A belief in the existence of God, and reverence for the Creator, and a cultivation of that sentiment in society, is for the good of society; is, in fact, the basis of all law and restraint. If the Almighty, who knows everything, or is supposed to, and has all power, has no right to restrain us, it is difficult to see how we can restrain each other.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 29.4}
    Mr. Jones. —He has the right to restrain us. He does restrain us.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 29.5}
    Senator Blair. —To commonly blaspheme and deride and ridicule the Almighty, would, of course, have a tendency to bring up the children who are soon to be the State, in an absolute disregard of him and his authority. Blasphemy, as I understand it, is that practice which brings the Creator into contempt and ridicule among his creatures.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 29.6}
    Mr. Jones. —What is blasphemy here, would not be blasphemy in China, and many other countries.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 29.7}
    Senator Blair. —We are not dealing with pagan communities. A regulation that may be appropriate in a pagan community, would not answer men in a Christian community. Do you mean that there is no such thing as blasphemy?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 29.8}
    Mr. Jones. —No; I do not mean that.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 29.9}
    Senator Blair. —The Chinaman hardly believes in

any god whatever; at least in no such God as we do. Taking our God and these Christian institutions of ours, what do you understand blasphemy to be?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 29.10}
    Mr. Jones. —There are many things that the Scriptures show to be blasphemy.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 30.1}
    Senator Blair. —The power of the law has undertaken in various States to say that certain things are blasphemy.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 30.2}
    Mr. Jones. —Precisely; but if the law proposes to define blasphemy and punish it, why does it not go to the depth of it, and define all and punish all?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 30.3}
    Senator Blair. —Perhaps it may not go as far as it ought. You say you are opposed to all laws against blasphemy, cursing, and swearing?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 30.4}
    Mr. Jones. —In relation to anyone of the first four commandments.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 30.5}
    Senator Palmer. —Suppose that what is defined as blasphemy in the statutes of the several States, should detract from the observance of the law and regard for it, would you regard laws against it as being improper?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 30.6}
    Mr. Jones. —Under the principle that the Scripture lays down, no legislation in any way can be proper in regard to the first four commandments. There may be many ways in which it would appear very appropriate for civil government to do this or to do that; but when you have entered upon such legislation, where will you stop?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 30.7}
    Senator Palmer. —Abstaining from blasphemy is a part of the education of the youth of the country.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 30.8}
    Mr. Jones. —That is true. If youth are properly educated, they will never blaspheme.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 30.9}
    Senator Palmer. —We pass laws for the education of the youth. The question is whether abstention from blasphemy could not be included in the scope of education. Take it on that ground.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 30.10}


Back To Top

Last File / Back to NSL Index / Next File