ing salt of true Sabbath observance is religion; the motive powers of genuine religion are faith and love; faith and love cannot be produced by force; therefore no human law, which is only of force, can ever produce true Sabbath observance.

The Sunday-law claim.

pernicious fallacy.

Example of the Roman empire.

Sunday

laws in Western Rome.

The devastating hordes.

SUNDAY ENFORCEMENT RUINOUS.'

The leaders in the Sunday movement make one of the foundation claims of their work "the preservation of society, the State, the nation." It is for this that they insist upon the enactment of Sunday aws. Accordingly, they are always calling for more Sunday laws. It matters not what far-reaching Sunday laws may be already on the statute books, they call for still more Sunday laws, and the more vigorous enforcement of them all round.

Yet this whole thing is one of the most pernicious of fallacies. It is not only such pernicious fallacy in principle, but it has been abundantly demonstrated to be such in practice. Every point advocated by the Sunday-law workers to-day has been weighed in the balances of practice and of experience, and has been found utterly wanting. The whole thing has been tested on a world-theater, and has been found absolutely vain and ruinous.

The greatest example of national ruin, the most complete destruction of the state, the most thorough annihilation of society, that has ever been seen on this earth, occurred where there were the most and the most far-reaching Sunday laws. That was in the Western empire of Rome.

In A. D. 313 the Western empire became " Christian." In 314 the first state favor was shown for Sunday. In 321 the first direct Sunday law was enacted. And so it went on with one Sunday law after another, till by 425 every kind of secular work or amusement was strictly forbidden on Sunday. By that time, too, wickedness and corruption of every sort had multiplied in this " Christian" empire to such an extent that the judgment of God in destruction had already begun to fall unchecked.

In 351 the Franks and Alemanni swept like a fire, a space of one hundred twenty miles, from the source to the mouth of the Rhine.

In 400-403 the Visigoths carried destruction and devastation through Rumania and into Italy as far as to Milan.

In 405-429 a mighty host of Suevi, Vandals, and Burgundians ravaged Italy as far as Florence, the greater part of Gaul, all of Spain, and all of Africa to Carthage.

1 Article in the American Sentinel," by A. T. Jones.

For examples of this, see preceding article on "Do Sunday Laws Preserve a Nation?"

In 408-419 the Visigoths overflowed the whole of Italy, all southwestern Gaul, and all of Spain.

In 449 the Angles and Saxons entered Britain, and never rested until "the arts and religion, the laws and language, which the Romans had so carefully planted in Britain, were extirpated; not until "the practice and even the remembrance of Christianity were abolished."

In 451-453 the Huns under Attila carried fire and slaughter from the Danube to Chalons and to Milan.

In 453 the Ostrogoths took possession of the province of Pannonia, and the Lombards, of Noricum.

In 476 Odoacer and his barbarian followers took possession of Italy, and abolished the office of emperor of the West; and the Western empire of Rome the state, and even society had been swept away by ruin upon ruin.

Sunday laws did not

preserve the Christian Roman

And that was the Christian" empire of Rome. That was the empire that had exhausted the subject of Sunday laws and enforced Sunday observance. That was the state that had done all this on behalf of the kingdom of God, and for the preservation and even the empire. salvation of the state.

There is not a method of Sunday enforcement, either mild or cruel, that has not been in that "Christian" Roman empire. There is not a phase of Sunday laws that has not been employed by the clerical managers of affairs in that Christian Roman state. There is nothing on that subject left by those for the Sunday-law clergy of to-day to discover. And the Sunday-law clergy of to-day must hide their eyes, not only from the principles, but also from the practical effects of Sunday legislation of every kind, before they can go on in their pernicious Sunday-law course.

For pernicious that course is, even to the ruin of the greatest nation and state in the world. This has been thoroughly demonstrated to the last detail, and in the demonstration it has been made plain that enforced Sunday observance is the worst thing that can ever be put upon a nation or practiced in society.

Every kind of Sunday law tried in the Roman experiment.

Ruined greatest

nation

in world.

TESTIMONY OF JUDGE THOMAS BARLOW.'

Christianity being of a kingdom not of this world, cannot be united with that of this world. This is too plain a proposition to be denied, and when the church descends to asking civil power to aid in its support, there is something dangerously carnal in the purpose.

The observers of the first day of the week as the Sabbath can ask no more for their religious convictions than can those who observe the seventh day. If the seventh-day worshipers were to demand of

1 From the Rome (N. Y.) "Daily Sentinel," January 27, 1891.

Christiandom not of ity of a king

this world.

The proposition reversed.

Sunday legislation a stepping. stone to

oppression.

government a forced observance of their day, those of the first day would look upon it as arid presumption, and rightfully so, too; and so is the demand of the observers of the first day toward those of the seventh day, and a free government must so consider it.

The church has always been seeking power and never surrenders any without being compelled. The effort at Sunday laws at this time is but a stepping-stone to that which would be still more oppressive. Look at the case of a Mr. King, of Tennessee, a worshiper of the seventh-day school. He plowed a piece of land quietly on his own farm on Sunday, and Pharisees of the first-day school prosecuted him and obtained a conviction for that act and a fine of seventy-five dollars imposed for it, and he was cast into prison. No one was molested by his work, but the old spirit of Puritanism indulged itself in that infamous proceeding. No man identified with the law allowing such a conviction, be he a priest or layman, juryman or judge, or legislator, is worthy the enjoyment of the privileges of a free civil government. It was hoped that Puritanism was dead in this country. But its spirit seems still to be among us, seeking its gratification in the meanest manner possible.

If the church had the power, every unbeliever would be outlawed; no one could hold office unless he was a church-member, nor be allowed to teach a common school.

An inborn principle.

The principle illustrated.

THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED.

Col. Richard M. Johnson spoke truly when, in those famous Sunday Mail Reports adopted by Congress in 1829 and 1830, he said that the feeling that our duty to God" is "superior to human enactments," and that man cannot rightfully "exercise authority" over the conscience, is "an inborn principle which nothing can eradicate." To confirm this he added: "The bigot, in the pride of his authority, may lose sight of it; but strip him of his power, prescribe a faith to him which his conscience rejects, threaten him in turn with the dungeon and the fagot, and the spirit which God has implanted in him rises up in rebellion, and defies you." See page 260.

The truthfulness of this observation is well illustrated in the following editorial, under the caption "Church and State," in the Wichita, Kansas, "Catholic Advance," of November 5, 1910:

66

'Bishop Hamilton, of the Methodist church, said that Kansas was the greatest Methodist State in the Union. The preachers of that denomination seem to have things their own way in Kansas, and the only thing the few other people who don't ride in the Wesley boat can do is to watch and pray. We will let them preach the prohibition law until they pound their pulpits to pieces, . . . but we are strenuously opposed to any legislation that will deprive our young

people of health-giving outdoor sport on Sunday afternoon. The Sunday is a day of rest from servile work, but is not a day of inactivity or laziness. The Catholic Church established the Sunday anyhow, and ought to know best how it is to be observed. She demands, under pain of sin, that all her faithful be present at the holy sacrifice of the mass on Sundays and hear the Word of God preached from the pulpits. She requires some considerable time for prayer. This obligation being satisfied, she does not prohibit or interfere in any way with those innocent amusements which serve for rest or recreation on any day. If our Methodist brethren choose to make laws for a more restricted observance of the Sunday among their own people, that is certainly within their right, and it is no business of ours; but when the same Methodist brethren put their heads together and decide as a church that they will have the State enforce their own church laws upon other churches who do not believe with them, then this is time to call a halt. If they will have the State Legislature to enact laws forbidding Methodist children from playing baseball on Sunday afternoons, well, if they haven't religious spunk enough to keep them in the beaten Wesleyan track, we have no objection if they call in the policeman, but we won't allow them to send a policeman over to us, as we get along beautifully without." Apply this doctrine to all who dissent from domination on the part of others in religious matters, and every church establishment and every Sunday law in the world would fall. And yet the doctrine is right. No one wishes the policeman sent to instruct him how he should conduct himself religiously. But this is the logic of every Sunday law ever enacted. The Golden Rule test is sufficient to condemn them all.

Opposed to law interfering

with liberties on Sunday.

Time to call a halt.

Principle applied

would abolish all religious laws.

VERDICT OF UNITED STATES SENATE.

"It is not in the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine what religion is true or what false. Our government is a civil and not a religious institution. Our Constitution recognizes in every person the right to choose his own religion, and to enjoy it freely without molestation. .. The proper object of government is to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their civil as well as their religious rights, and not to determine for any whether they shall esteem one day above another, or esteem all days alike holy.. What other nations call religious toleration, we call religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights of which government can not deprive any portion of its citizens, however small. Despotic power may invade those rights, but justice still confirms them."

1 United States Senate Sunday Mail Report, 1829. See ante pages 237, 234, 242.

Our government civil, not religious.

The warning

of history.

Not by human laws.

Uniform

ity in religious views impossible.

Necessity of entire

separation of church and

state.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' VERDICT. "Despots may regard their subjects as their property, and usurp the divine prerogative of prescribing their religious faith; but the history of the world furnishes the melancholy demonstration that the disposition of one man to coerce the religious homage of another, springs from an unchastened ambition, rather than a sincere devotion to any religion. . . . The catastrophe of other nations furnished the framers of the Constitution a beacon of awful warning, and they have evinced the greatest possible care in guarding against the same evil. . . The principles of our government do not recognize in the majority any authority over the minority, except in matters which regard the conduct of man to his fellow man. . . . The Constitution regards the conscience of the Jew as sacred as that of the Christian, and gives no more authority to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual than that of a whole community."1

VIEWS OF DR. ALBERT BARNES.

.

"If we can have a Sabbath sacred in its stillness and its associations, maintained by a healthful, popular sentiment, rather than by human laws, Christianity is safe in this land, and our country is safe. If not, the Sabbath, and religion, and liberty will die together. If the Sabbath is not regarded as holy time, it will be regarded as pastime; if not a day sacred to devotion, it will be a day of recreation, of pleasure, of licentiousness." "

SHORT SUMMARY BY HON. WM. F. VILAS."

My views upon this subject come from the teachings of Jefferson and Madison, and reflection and observation strengthen them continually. It must be accorded to be an inevitable deduction from all our history that humanity cannot be brought into accord on questions of religion. No subject has ever been more prolific of fierce strife. No means of determining differences between different religions or different sects has been found. The truth of revelation is contested, and every sect or religion which believes in a special communication finds others who disbelieve as ardently.

This short summary of a long and painful history shows amply the absolute necessity of entire freedom of opinion in respect to subjects which mankind must differ upon. The whole business of the state with religion is to protect all in their religious rights of religious opinion, undisturbed by others. The absolute independence of the church from the state and the state from the church, meaning by 'the church' every form or fashion of religious belief, is a doctrine which must be insisted upon continually as absolutely essential to the peace and concord of the country."

1 See pages 250, 249, 251, 254. 2" Practical Sermons." 3 From letter to compiler of this work. Mr. Vilas was Postmaster-General under President Cleveland 1885 to 1888,