Last File / Back to NSL Index / Next File

         File 5, pages 75-96

to put it into law, and try to compel by civil law all people to keep as the Lord’s day that for which there is no scriptural authority? Let me read another passage from another book, printed by the American Sunday-school Union. On page 186 of “The Lord’s Day,” written by Mr. A. E. Waffle, are these words:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 74.1}
    “Up to the time of Christ’s death, no change had been made in the day. The authority must be sought in the words or in the example of the inspired apostles.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.1}
Then on the very next page he says:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.2}
    “So far as the record shows, they [the apostles] did not, however, give any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.3}
    Dr. Schaff, in the Schaff Herzog Cyclopedia, says:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.4}
    “No regulations for its observance are laid down in the New Testament, nor, indeed, is its observance even enjoined.” —Article Sunday.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.5}
    If, then, they confess that Christ gave no law for its observance, why do they want to compel people to observe it? What right have they to compel anybody to observe it? I deny their right to compel me or anybody else to do what Christ never commanded any man to do.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.6}
    Senator Blair. —You admit there was a Sabbath before Christ came?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.7}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.8}
    Senator Blair. —And he said came not to destroy, but to fulfill?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.9}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.10}
    Senator Blair. —Is there anything in the New Testament which destroyed the Sabbath already existing?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.11}
    Mr. Jones. —No, sir.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 75.12}

    Senator Blair. —Then why does it not continue to exist?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.1}
    Mr. Jones. —It does exist, and we keep the commandment which provides for the Sabbath.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.2}
    Senator Blair. —Then you say there is a Sabbath recognized, and that is equivalent to its re-affirmation by Christ?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.3}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.4}
    Senator Blair. —I do not see from what you are stating, but that Christ recognized an existing law, and that it is continuing at the present time. You say that it is one day, and they say that it is another.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.5}
    Mr. Jones. —But they are after a law to enforce the observance of the first day of the week as the Lord’s day, when they confess that the Lord never gave any command in regard to it. The commandment which God gave says that the “seventh day is the Sabbath.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.6}
    Senator Blair. —Is it still the Sabbath?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.7}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly, and we keep it; but we deny the right of any civil government to compel any man either to keep it or not to keep it.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.8}
    Senator Blair. —The civil government of the Jews compelled its observance?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.9}
    Mr. Jones. —That was a theocracy.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.10}
    Senator Blair. —Does it follow that when the only form of government is a theocracy and that embraces all that appertains to government, another form of government which is not a theocracy necessarily, cannot embrace the same subject-matter as the theocracy? If the subject-matter of a theocratical, a monarchial, or a republican form of government is not the same, to control the establishment of good order in society, pray what is it? We say, and it our form of government, that the people shall legislate, shall construe the law,

and execute the law. Under the old theocratic form, God made the law, God construed it, and God executed it through his instrumentalities; but we do just the same thing by the will of the people, that under the theocratic form of government was done in the other way. Now if the Sabbath is necessarily for the general good of society, a republican form of government must make and enforce the observance of the Sabbath just as the theocracy did. You seem to be laboring, as it strikes me, under the impression that a civil government for the good of the people carried on by us under the republican form, cannot do anything that the theocratic form of government does when the theocratic is the only form. They necessarily cover the same subject-matter, —the control, the development, the good, and the health of society, it makes no difference which one it may be.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 76.11}
    Mr. Jones. —A theocratic government is a government of God.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 77.1}
    Senator Blair. —So are the powers that be ordained of God.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 77.2}
    Mr. Jones. —This Government is not a government of God.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 77.3}
    Senator Blair. —Do you not consider the Government of the United States as existing in accordance with the will of God?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 77.4}
    Mr. Jones. —Yes, but it is not a government of God. The government of God is a moral government. This is a civil government.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 77.5}
    Senator Blair. —A theocracy is a civil government, and governs in civil affairs, as well as in the region of spirituality and morality and religion.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 77.6}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly, and God governs it, and nothing but a theocracy can enforce those things which

pertain to man’s relation to God under the first four commandments.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 77.7}
    Senator Blair. —But this proposed legislation is outside of the theocratic part of it.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 78.1}
    Mr. Jones. —Not at all; for it purposes by penalties to “promote” the religious observance of the Lord’s day, while nothing but the government of God can do that. That is the point I am making here, that if you allow this legislation, you lead to the establishment of a new theocracy after the model of the papacy, and civil government has nothing to do with religious things. This bill is wholly religious; and if you begin this course of religious legislation, you will end only in a theocracy, —a man-made theocracy, —and that will be the papacy repeated.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 78.2}
    Senator Blair. —We have had the Sunday laws in this country for three hundred years. They have constantly become more and more liberalized. Have you ever known an instance, though the sentiment in favor of the Sabbath seems to be growing constantly stronger, where any State in this Union undertook to enact a law that anybody should go to church, which is the danger you seem to apprehend?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 78.3}
    Mr. Jones. —Not yet. They are now after the first law. This will lead to that. The law of Constantine was enacted in 321, and it commanded at first only that towns-people and mechanics should do no work, that they might be religious. They did not ask for too much at first. As was said in a ministers’ meeting in San Diego, Cal., about two months ago, “In this thing you must not ask for too much at first. Ask just what public sentiment will bear, and when you get that, ask for more.” And as was said upon this bill by Dr. Crafts in this Capitol,—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 78.4}

    “We will take a quarter of a loaf, half a loaf, or a whole loaf. If the Government should do nothing more than forbid the opening of the post-offices at church hours, it would be a national tribute to the value of religion, and would lead to something more satisfactory.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.1}
    Then in telling what would be more satisfactory, he said:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.2}
    “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.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.3}
    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:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.4}
    “A law forbidding the opening between ten and twelve, would accomplish this, and would be better than nothing; but we want more.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.5}
    And, —  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.6}
    “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.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.7}
    He continues: —{1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.8}
    “Local option in deciding whether a local post-office shall be opened at all on Sunday, we should welcome as better than nothing; . . . but we desire more than this.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.9}
    How much more? Still he continues:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.10}
    “A law forbidding all carrier delivery of mail on Sunday, would be better than nothing; but we want more than that.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.11}
    And when will they ever get enough? It is precisely as it was when the Emperor Constantine forbade the

judges, towns-people, and mechanics to work on Sunday. That was an imperial tribute to the “value of religion,” and led to “something more satisfactory” —to the church managers.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 79.12}
    Senator Blair. —Have you ever heard of a proposition’s being made in any legislative body to compel anyone to attend church on Sunday?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 80.1}
    Mr. Jones. —The propositions that are made are for that very purpose, to stop the Sunday trains, the Sunday newspapers, —in short, to stop all work on Sunday, so that the people can go to church.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 80.2}
    Senator Blair. —But these people come here and say that they have no such purpose, and they have been doing these things in the States for a hundred years, and during the Colonial period anterior to that time. Have you ever heard on the American continent, within the territory of what is now the United States, a proposition or a suggestion in a legislative body to compel anybody to attend church?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 80.3}
    Mr. Jones. —Not in legislative body, but in ecclesiastical bodies.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 80.4}
    Senator Blair. —Ecclesiastical bodies do not make the laws. Congress is not an ecclesiastical body.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 80.5}
    Mr. Jones. —But it is an ecclesiastical body that is seeking to secure and enforce this law, just as the New England theocracy did when “absence from ‘the ministry of the word’ was punished by a fine;” and then when people were compelled under such penalty to go to church and listen to the preaching, it was such preaching as, said one of the victims, “was meat to be digested, but only by the heart or stomach of an ostrich.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 80.6}
    Nor was this confined to Colonial times or to New England; for after the Colonies became States, North

Carolina had a Sunday law, —has yet, for aught I know, —reading as follows:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 80.7}
    “Be it enacted . . . that all and every person or persons shall on the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, carefully apply themselves to the duties of religion and piety.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 81.1}
    In 1803, Tennessee passed a law embodying the same words. But South Carolina and Georgia went farther than this; South Carolina enacted that—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 81.2}
    “All and every person whatsoever, shall, on every Lord’s day, apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately; and having no reasonable or lawful excuse, on every Lord’s day shall resort to their parish church, or some other parish church, or some meeting or assembly of religious worship.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 81.3}
    In 1803, Georgia likewise enacted a Sunday law whose first section required all persons to attend public worship. In 1821, the State of Connecticut, in revising its laws, made its Sunday law read in the first section, that—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 81.4}
    “It shall be the duty of the citizens of this State to attend the public worship of God on the Lord’s day.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 81.5}
    This is precisely the line of things proposed by these men and women now working for this Sunday law. This is the first step in that direction. The whole object which they have in view in stopping work on Sunday, is identical with that of the fourth century; namely, in order that the people may be devoted, in order that they may go to church. The very intention of these men in securing the law is religious.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 81.6}
    I will refer you to some of the statements of the very men who stood in this room this forenoon, arguing

for this Sunday bill. Dr. W. W. Everts, of Chicago, in a Sunday-law convention in Illinois, Nov. 8, 1887, declared Sunday to be the “test of all religion.” Taking his own words, what can the enforcement of it ever be but the enforcement of a religious test? Dr. Crafts, who is so prominent in this work, said to the Knights of Labor at Indianapolis, as I have before quoted, and he repeated it in this city last night, “If you take religion out of the day, you take the rest out of it.” This statement was made in reply to a question as to whether a day of rest could not be secured to the working-men without reference to religion. Taking the statement of Dr. Crafts, therefore, its being a day of rest to anybody depends altogether upon whether religion is in it; for if you take religion out, you take the rest out. He, with these others, demands a law compelling the people to take the rest. Religion being in the rest, and the rest wholly dependent upon the fact that religion is in it, it is inevitable that their effort to secure a law compelling everybody to rest on Sunday is an effort to establish by law a religious observance.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 81.7}
    Again: in the Boston Monday lectureship of 1887, Joseph Cook said,—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 82.1}
    “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.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 82.2}
    Further: Dr. Everts said in the Elgin convention:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 82.3}
    “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.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 82.4}
    And in Chicago only three weeks ago, Dr. Herrick Johnson named the matter with which he said the Sunday papers are filled —crime, scandal, gossip, news, and politics —and exclaimed:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 82.5}

    “What a melange! 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.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 83.1}
    Dr. Everts said further in the Elgin convention:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 83.2}
    “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!”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 83.3}
    I will give one more statement which sums up the whole matter. 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:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 83.4}
    “You relegate moral instruction to the church, and then let all go as they please on Sunday, so that we cannot get at them.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 83.5}
    Therefore they want the State to corral all the people on Sunday, so that the preachers can get at them.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 83.6}
    These statements might be multiplied indefinitely; but these are enough. The speeches, and the sermons, and the work, of those who are in favor of the Sunday laws, 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 instead of going to church, and because those who read it and go to church too, are not so well prepared to receive the preaching.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 83.7}

    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 they went to both, it must be confessed that the Roman circus or theater was not a very excellent dish —“What a melange!” —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 anyone who did not attend it; or how a Sunday train in the nineteenth century can hurry to perdition anyone who does not ride on it. And if 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, is of the same flimsy piece. If the Sunday paper gets into a man’s house, where lies the blame; upon the paper, or upon the one who takes it and reads it? 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.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 84.1}
    When they shall have stopped all Sunday works; and 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 that the

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? Having taken all the steps but this, will they not take this? Having compelled men to rest, will they stop short of an effort to supply the religious sanctions which alone can prevent a day of enforced rest from being a day of enforced idleness, and consequently of wickedness? The probability that they will not is strengthened by the fact that the theory upon which this is carried on is identical with that of the fourth century —the theory of a theocracy.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 84.2}
    I have cited the theocratical purpose of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. The National Reform Association, whose secretary stood at this table to-day to plead for the passage of this bill, aims directly at the establishment of a theocracy in this Government. In their own words, they propose to make this republic “as truly and really a theocracy as the commonwealth of Israel.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 85.1}
    The Sunday-law Association also holds much the same theory. In the Elgin Sunday-law convention, Dr. Mandeville, of Chicago, said:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 85.2}
    “The merchants of Tyre insisted upon selling goods near the temple on the Sabbath, and Nehemiah compelled the officers of the law to do their duty, and stop it. So we can compel the officers of the law to do their duty.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 85.3}
    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 the establishment of a theocracy. With this idea the view of Dr. Crafts agrees precisely, and Dr. Crafts is general field secretary for the National Sunday-law Union. He claims, as expressed in his own words, that—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 85.4}
    “The preachers are the successors of the prophets.” —Christian Statesman, July 5, 1888.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 86.1}
    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 law to prevent all selling of goods and all manner of work on Sunday. This shows conclusively that these preachers intend 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:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 86.2}
    “In this work we are undertaking for the Sabbath, we are the representatives of God.”  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 86.3}
    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.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 86.4}
    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? If Congress lets them have the power, they will surely use it. Human nature is the same now as it was in the fourth century. Politics is the same now 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.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 86.5}
    How appropriate, therefore, is it that Cardinal Gibbons should indorse the national Sunday bill! How natural, indeed, that he should gladly add his name to the number of petitioners in support of the movement to secure legislation in the interests of the church! He knows just how his brethren in the fourth century worked the same kind of scheme; he knows what the outcome of the movement was then; and he knows full well what the outcome of this movement will be now. He knows that the theory underlying this movement is identical with the theory which was the basis of that; he knows the methods of working are the same now as they were then; he knows that the means employed to secure control of the civil power now, are identical with the means employed then; and he knows that the result must be the same. He knows that when religion shall have been established as an essential element in legislation in this Government, the experience of fifteen

hundred eventful years, and “the ingenuity and patient care” of fifty generations of statesmen, will not be lost in the effort to make the papal power supreme over all here and now, as was done there and then. And in carrying out the instructions of Pope Leo XIII., that “all Catholics should do all in their power to cause the constitutions of States and legislation to be modeled upon the principles of the true church,” the Cardinal assuredly is glad to have the opportunity to add his name to the more than six millions of Protestants who are set for the accomplishment of the same task.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 87.1}
    To those Protestants who are so anxious to make religion a subject of legislation, it now appears very desirable; and it also appears a very pleasant thing to secure the alliance of the papacy. But when they shall have accomplished the feat, and find themselves in the midst of the continuous whirl of political strife and contention with the papacy, not alone for supremacy, but for existence, —then they will find it not nearly so desirable as it now appears to their vision, blinded by the lust for illegitimate power.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 88.1}
    And when they find themselves compelled to pay more than they bargained to, they will have but themselves to blame; for when they make religion a subject of legislation, they therein confess that it is justly subject to the rule of majorities. And then, if the Romish Church secures the majority, and compels the Protestants to conform to Catholic forms and ordinances, the Protestants cannot justly complain. Knowing, as we do, the outcome of the same kind of movement before, we do not propose to allow this scheme to be worked out here without a decided protest.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 88.2}
    Senator Blair. —You are entirely logical, because you say there should be no Sunday legislation by State or nation either.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 88.3}

    Mr. Jones. —Yes, sir, of course I am logical, all the way through. I want to show you the wicked principle upon which this whole system is founded, and the reason I do this is because the last step is involved in the first one. If you allow this principle and this movement to take the first step, those who get the power will see in the end that they take the last step. That is the danger. See how in the fourth century the logic of it ended only with the Inquisition.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.1}
    Senator Blair. —Was the Inquisition abolished by the abolition of the Sunday laws?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.2}
    Mr. Jones. —No; but the principle of it was established by Sunday laws.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.3}
    Senator Blair. —Then if the inquisition was established by the Sunday laws, how was it abolished, but by the abolition of the Sabbath? How can you remove an effect except by removing its cause?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.4}
    Mr. Jones. —The Sunday laws never have been abolished.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.5}
    Senator Blair. —Then the Sunday law could not have been the cause of the Inquisition.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.6}
    Mr. Jones. —The power which embodies the Inquisition still continues, and its emissaries have been in this country defending the Inquisition. That same power is now grasping for the control of the civil law, and the same causes generally produce the same effects.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.7}
    Senator Blair. —And the removal of the causes removes the effects with them.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.8}
    Mr. Jones. —Sometimes.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.9}
    Senator Blair. —Therefore the Sunday laws were not the cause of the Inquisition, unless the Inquisition still exists.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.10}
    Mr. Jones. —No, the Sunday laws did not cause the Inquisition.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.11}
    Senator Blair. —I understood you to say that it did.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 89.12}

    Mr. Jones. —I say, through that the church received the power to make the principle and the work of the Inquisition effective. A certain exercise of power may be forbidden, and yet the means by which the power was obtained may not be forbidden. In other words, the power which was obtained through the deception of Sunday laws, may be prohibited in certain things, and yet allowed in many other things.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.1}
    Senator Blair. —The Lord made the Sabbath, and governed the Jewish nation for nearly three thousand years with a Sabbath. Do you think the Sabbath was for the good of the Jewish people, or for their injury?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.2}
    Mr. Jones. —It was established for the good of the human race.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.3}
    Senator Blair. —Including the Jewish people?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.4}
    Mr. Jones. —Yes, sir.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.5}
    Senator Blair. —It was established as a part of the civil administration.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.6}
    Mr. Jones. —But the church and the State were one.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.7}
    Senator Blair. —Therefore what we call the civil administration was included in that theocracy.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.8}
    Mr. Jones. —The church and the State were one. They were united, and it was a theocracy.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.9}
    Senator Blair. —If the administration of the Sabbath during these three thousand years, at least, was for the good of the Jews and the human race, why will not the Sabbath be good for the Jews and the human race since the time of Christ, as well as before?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.10}
    Mr. Jones. —It is for the good of the human race.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.11}
    Senator Blair. —The civil law must administrate it if it is done. Then we will get no Sabbath now under our division of powers of government, unless we have the Sabbath recognized and enforced by the State authority?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 90.12}

    Mr. Jones. —Certainly we have a Sabbath.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.1}
    Senator Blair. —Your proposition is to strike out the Sabbath from the Constitution and condition of society in these modern times?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.2}
    Mr. Jones. —No, sir.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.3}
    Senator Blair. —Certainly so far as its existence and enactment and enforcement by law are concerned.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.4}
    Mr. Jones. —Yes, by civil law.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.5}
    Senator Blair. —It was enforced in what we call the civil conduct of men under that theocratic form of government for at least three thousand years.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.6}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.7}
    Senator Blair. —Now the observance of the Sabbath depends upon a compulsory observance of the law.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.8}
    Mr. Jones. —Not at all.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.9}
    Senator Blair. —It required the law of God which he enforced by death, by stoning men to death when they violated it, and we have the Sabbath day only by virtue of what we call the civil law, which is equally a part of God’s law.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.10}
    Mr. Jones. —That government was not organized specially to enforce the Sabbath.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.11}
    Senator Blair. —They stoned men to death who violated the law.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.12}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly; and likewise for the transgression of the other commandments.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.13}
    Senator Blair. —God enforced it, in other words, by human means.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.14}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly; my answer to all that is that that was a theocracy, —a union of church and state. The church was the State, and the State was the church.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.15}
    Senator Blair. —You say now that there is no State to enforce it?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 91.16}

    Mr. Jones. —I say that no government can enforce the Sabbath, or those things which pertain to God, except a theocratic government —a union of church and state. Therefore I say that if you establish such a law as is here proposed, you lead directly to a union of church and state. The logic of the question demands it, and that is where it will end, because the law cannot be enforced otherwise. These gentlemen say they do not want a union of church and state. What they mean by church and state is, for the State to select one particular denomination, and make it the favorite above all other denominations. That is a union of church and state according to their idea. But a union of church and state was formed by Constantine when he recognized Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire. Everybody knows that that was a union of church and state, and that it ended in the papacy. A union of church and state is where the ecclesiastical power controls the civil power, and uses the civil power in its own interests. That is where this movement will end, and that is one of the reasons why we oppose it.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 92.1}
    Senator Blair. —You say the church and state separated shall not do those proper things which the church and state always did when united in the theocracy?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 92.2}
    Mr. Jones. —No, sir.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 92.3}
    Senator Blair. —Then why do you say that the state—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 92.4}
    Mr. Jones. —I did not mean to deny your proposition; I think the way you intended, I mean “Yes,” because I certainly do say that the church and state separated shall do those proper things which were done when they were united in the theocracy.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 92.5}
    Senator Blair. —If in this division of the powers of

government into church and state, you exclude from the powers of the church the establishment and enforcement and regulation of the Sabbath, why do you not necessarily, if the Sabbath is a good thing, pass it over to the control of the State?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 92.6}
    Mr. Jones. —Because if the church will not recognize it and preserve it, the State cannot compel people to do it. The State that attempts it is bound to fail.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 93.1}
    Senator Blair. —Then you necessarily take the ground that God did wrong in the enforcement of the Sabbath during those three thousand years when his government was both church and state.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 93.2}
    Mr. Jones. —No, sir. If God would come himself to govern, and make himself governor, as he did of Israel, he could enforce the law as he did there. But until God does that, we deny the right of all the churches or anybody else, to do it.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 93.3}
    Mr. Senator Blair. —Even if it is for the good of society?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 93.4}
    Mr. Jones. —What they say is for the good of society is for the ruin of society.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 93.5}
    Senator Blair. —Do you understand that it is the church or the State that is making this law?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 93.6}
    Mr. Jones. —It is the State that is doing it, just as Constantine did it, to satisfy the churches.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 93.7}
    Senator Blair. —It may or may not satisfy the churches. The churches give their reasons here, which may be right or wrong, for the establishment of the Sabbath —for this Sunday legislation in all the States. The State, the whole people, make the law. You say that the whole people shall not make a good law because the churches ask for it.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 93.8}
    Mr. Jones. —I say the whole people shall not make a bad law, even though the churches do demand it; for any civil law relating to God is a bad law.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 93.9}

    Senator Blair. —Then what God did for three thousand years for the good of the Jews and the human race, was wrong?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.1}
    Mr. Jones. —No, sir; it was right.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.2}
    Senator Blair. —Then why not continue it?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.3}
    Mr. Jones. —Because he has discontinued that kind of government.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.4}
    Senator Blair. —We have done nothing in the world to divide the powers of government into those of church and state. We say those departments shall not interfere with each other.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.5}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.6}
    Senator Blair. —Here and in the States we are trying to run the civil parts. We have taken jurisdiction of a portion of what God has entire jurisdiction, as to the church and state in the civil relations of men. The entire society does that. We put the sovereignty into the hands of everybody except women, and some of us are trying to do that. We have the same subject-matter, the good of society under our control, which under the theocracy was united into both church and state. If you do not let the State continue to do what was essential to society then, and is now, you are striking at one of the great ends for which government exists.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.7}
    Mr. Jones. —Not at all; because God has discontinued that kind of government.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.8}
    Senator Blair. —He has not discontinued the necessity of laws for the regulation of society.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.9}
    Mr. Jones. —He has in that way.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.10}
    Senator Blair. —No; it is just as necessary that there should be a Sabbath now for the good of man, as when God made and enforced the law by his direct supervision under a theocracy.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 94.11}

    Mr. Jones. —But no government but a theocracy can enforce such laws.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.1}
    Senator Blair. —Then unless we have a theocracy, we shall have no Sabbath.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.2}
    Mr. Jones. —We shall have no laws regulating the Sabbath.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.3}
    Senator Blair. —The Sabbath did not descend to the Jews and to all mankind, because there was a theocratic form of government among the Jews. How did the Sabbath come to mankind at large, when there was no theocratic form of government?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.4}
    Mr. Jones. —Those nations never kept it. Nobody but the Jews ever kept it.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.5}
    Senator Blair. —They could have kept it, because you say the Sabbath existed for all; not for the Jews alone, but for the human race.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.6}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly, but if they did not keep it, it would do no good.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.7}
    Senator Blair. —It did not exist for good, then?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.8}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly; a thing may exist for my good, and I may refuse to use it, as thousands do the salvation of Christ.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.9}
    Senator Blair. —I was taking your statement as true that it did exist for good outside of the Jews.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.10}
    Mr. Jones. —I said it was for the good of man. The Saviour said it was for the good of man. The Saviour died for the good of man.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.11}
    Senator Blair. —You would abolish the Sabbath, anyway?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.12}
    Mr. Jones. —Yes, in the civil law.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.13}
    Senator Blair. —You would abolish any Sabbath from human practice which shall be in the form of law, unless the individual here and there sees fit to observe it?  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 95.14}

    Mr. Jones. —Certainly; that is a matter between man and his God.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 96.1}
    Senator Blair. —Your time has expired. Please take five minutes to close, as I have asked you some questions; still, they were questions that touched the trouble in my own mind.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 96.2}
    Mr. Jones. —Certainly; but I supposed that I was to have an hour to devote, uninterruptedly, to the points in questions.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 96.3}
    Senator Blair. —We have always been accustomed to conducting these hearings with reference to getting at the difficulties we had in our own minds, and I do not feel as though you could complain with an hour and ten minutes, if we give you ten minutes more.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 96.4}
    Mr. Jones. —Very good. Mr. Chairman, I have shown that in the fourth century this same movement developed a theocracy and in that the papacy, religious despotism, and oppression for conscience’ sake. Now I want to show the secret of at least a portion of the present movement. The representative of the National Reform Association spoke here in behalf of this proposed legislation. That Association is asking for such a law and for such an amendment to the Constitution as you have proposed, in relation to the Christian religion in the public schools. That measure pleases them well, and this proposed Sunday law pleases them well.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 96.5}
    Senator Blair. —Just incorporate that proposed amendment to the Constitution in your remarks.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 96.6}
    Mr. Jones. —Very well; it is as follows:—  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 96.7}
“50th CONGRESS, S. R. 86. 1st SESSION.”
{1889 ATJ, NSLS18 96.8}
    “Joint Resolution, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting establishments of religion and free public schools.  {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 96.9}


Back To Top

Last File / Back to NSL Index / Next File