A title for this chapter equally good with the above would be, The Making of the Papacy and the Perfect Likeness to It; for the professed Christian church did once obtain control of the civil power, and by that power compelled all to do her bidding. This was the making and the working of the Papacy. It is well to see how that was done, and to know the means by which it was done. And if we shall see the same things being done over again, in our day and country, we shall know what it implies. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, 7, Paul wrote:-
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work."
Speaking to the elders of the church at Ephesus, Paul makes known what is the secret, we might say the spring, of the Papacy. Acts 20:28-30. "Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples alter them." He was here speaking to the elders of the churches-the bishops. Whether he meant that there would be among these Ephesian bishops, individuals who would do this, or that the bishopric would be perverted from its true office, and would exalt itself to the full development of the Papacy, it matters not; for the words themselves express the fact as it was enacted in the history that followed. The bishopric of Rome finally developed into the Papacy, which is the embodiment of the "mystery of iniquity." This work, as he says, began by the bishops' speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
It became quite general about twenty years after the death of John. Says Mosheim:-
"The bishops augmented the number of religions rites in the Christian worship, by way of accommodation to the infirmities and prejudices both of Jews and heathen, in order to facilitate their conversion to Christianity." "For this purpose, they gave the name of mysteries to the institutions of the gospel, and decorated particularly the holy sacrament with that solemn title. They used in that sacred institution, as also in that of baptism, several of the terms employed in the heathen mysteries, and proceeded so far at length as to adopt some of the ceremonies of which those renowned mysteries consisted. This imitation began in the Eastern provinces; but after the time of Hadrian [emperor A. D. 117-138], who first introduced the mysteries among the Latins, it was followed by the Christians who dwelt in the western part of the empire. A great part, therefore, of the service of the church in this century, had a certain air of the heathen mysteries, and resembled them considerably in many particulars."-Church History, cent, 2, part 2, chapter 4, par. 2, 5.
Another means by which these ambitious bishops secured disciples to themselves in great numbers from among the heathen, was the adoption of the day of the sun as a festival day.
"The oldest, the most widespread, and the most enduring of all the forms of idolatry known to man, [is] the worship of the sun."-T. W. Chambers, in Old Testament Student, January, 1886.
And says Mosheim:-
"Before the coming of Christ all the Eastern nations performed divine worship with their faces turned to that part of the heavens where the sun displays his rising beams. This custom was founded upon a general opinion that God, whose essence they looked upon to be light, and whom they considered as being circumscribed within certain limits, dwelt in that part of the firmament from which he sends forth the sun, the bright image of his benignity and glory. The Christian converts, indeed, rejected this gross error [of supposing that God dwelt in that part of the firmament]; but they retained the ancient and universal custom of worshiping toward the east, which sprang from it. Nor is this custom abolished even in our times, but still prevails in a great number of Christian churches."-Church History, cent. 2, part 2, chapter 4, par. 7.
See also Ezekiel 8:16. This was first adopted in connection with the Sabbath of the Lord; but after a while the paganized form of godliness crowded out the Sabbath entirely, and those were cursed who would observe it. By the beginning of the fourth century this apostasy had gained a prominence by which it could make itself felt in the political workings of the Roman Empire. The ambitious bishops of the apostasy had at this time invented a theory of government which they determined to have recognized, which should make the civil power subordinate to the ecclesiastical. Says Neander:-
"There had in fact arisen in the church a false theocratical theory, originating not in the essence of the gospel, but in the confusion of the religious constitutions of the Old and New Testaments, which ... brought along with it an unchristian opposition of the spiritual to the secular power, and which might easily result in the formation of a sacerdotal State, subordinating the secular to itself in a false and outward way."-Torrey's Neander, Boston, 1852, p. 132.
The government of Israel was a true theocracy. That was really a government of God. At the burning bush, God commissioned Moses to lead his people out of Egypt. By signs and wonders and mighty miracles multiplied, God delivered Israel from Egypt, and led them through the wilderness, and finally into the promised land. There he ruled them by judges "until Samuel the prophet," to whom, when he was a child, God spoke, and by whom he made known his will. In the days of Samuel, the people asked that they might have a king. This was allowed, and God chose Saul, and Samuel anointed him king of Israel. Saul failed to do the will of God, and as he rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord rejected him from being king, and sent Samuel to anoint David king of Israel; and David's throne God established forevermore. When Solomon succeeded to the kingdom in the place of David his father, the record is, "Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father." 1 Chronicles 29:23. David's throne was the throne of the Lord, and Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king over the earthly kingdom of God. The succession to the throne descended in David's line to Zedekiah, who was made subject to the king of Babylon, and who entered into a solemn covenant before God that he would loyally render allegiance to the king of Babylon. But Zedekiah broke his covenant; and then God said to him:
"Thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, thus saith the Lord God: Remove the diadem, and take off the crown; this shall not be the same; exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him." Ezekiel 21:25-27. See also Ezekiel 17:1-21.
The kingdom was then subject to Babylon. When Babylon fell, and Medo-Persia succeeded, it was overturned the first time. When Medo-Persia fell, and was succeeded by Grecia, it was overturned the second time. When the Greek Empire gave way to Rome, it was overturned the third time. And then says the word, "It shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him." Who is he whose right it is?-"Thou ... shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Luke 1:31-33. And while he was here "that prophet," "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief," the night in which he was betrayed he himself declared, "My kingdom is not of this world."
Thus the throne of the Lord has been removed from this world, and will "be no more, until he come whose right it is," and then it will be given him. And that time is the end of this world, and the beginning of "the world to come." Therefore, while this world stands, a true theocracy can never be in it again. Consequently, from the death of Christ till the end of this world, every theory of an earthly theocracy is a false theory; every pretension to it is a false pretension; and wherever any such theory is proposed or advocated, whether in Rome in the fourth century, or anywhere else in any other century, it bears in it all that the Papacy is or that it ever pretended to be,-it puts a man in the place of God.
These theocratical bishops in the fourth century made themselves and their power a necessity to Constantine, who, in order to make sure of their support, became a political convert to the form of Christianity, and made it the recognized religion of the empire. And says Neander further:-
"This theocratical theory was already the prevailing one in the time of Constantine; and ... the bishops voluntarily made themselves dependent on him by their disputes, and by their determination to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims."-Idem.
In these quotations from Neander, the whole history of the Papacy is epitomized. All that the history of the Papacy is, is only the working out of this theory. For the first step in the logic of a man-made theocracy, is a pope; the second step is the infallibility of that pope; and the third step is the Inquisition, to make his infallibility effective, as we will prove:-
First, a true theocracy being a government immediately directed by God, a false theocracy is a government directed by a man in the place of God. But a man governing in the place of God is a pope. A man ruling the world in the place of God is all that the pope has ever claimed to be. In the Encyclical of Leo XIII., of June, 1894, relating to the "reunion of Christendom," addressed "To the Princes and Peoples of the Universe," this pope assures them that "we hold the regency of God on earth." 46
Second, a false theocracy being a professed government of God, he who sits at the head of it, sits there as the representative of God. He represents the divine authority; and when he speaks or acts officially, his speech or act is that of God. But to make a man thus the representative of God, is only to clothe human passions with divine power and authority. And being human, he is bound always to act unlike God; and being clothed with irresponsible power, he will sometimes act like the devil. Consequently, in order to make all his actions consistent with his profession, he is compelled to cover them all with the divine attributes, and make everything that he does in his official capacity the act of God.
This is precisely the logic and the profession of papal infallibility. It is not claimed that all the pope speaks is infallible; it is only what he speaks officially-what he speaks "from the throne." Under this theory, he sits upon that throne as the head of the government of God in this world. He sits there as the representative-the "regent"-of God. And when he speaks officially, when he speaks from the throne, he speaks as the representative of God. Therefore, sitting in the place of God, ruling from that place as the official representative of God, that which he speaks from the throne is the word of God, and must be infallible.
This is the straight logic of the false theocratical theory. And if it is denied that the theory is false, there is logically no escape from accepting the papal system. The claims of the Papacy are not in the least extravagant, if the theory be correct.
Third, God is the moral governor. His government is a moral one, whose code is the moral law. His government and his law have to do with the thoughts, the intents, and the secrets of men's hearts. This must be ever the government of God, and nothing short of it can be the government of God. The pope then being the head of what pretends to be a government of God, and ruling there in the place of God, his government must rule in the realm of morals, and must take cognizance of the counsels of the heart. But being a man, how could he discover what were the thoughts of men's hearts, whether they were good or evil, that he might pronounce judgment upon them?-By long and careful experiment, and by intense ingenuity, means were discovered by which the most secret thoughts of men's hearts might be wrung from them, and that was by the Inquisition.
But the Inquisition was only the direct logic of the theocratical theory upon which the Papacy was founded. The history of the Papacy is only the logic of the theocratical theory upon which the Papacy was founded: First, a pope; then the infallibility of that pope; then the Inquisition, to make his infallible authority effective. And that is the logic of any the ocratical theory of earthly government since Jesus Christ died.
This being the theory of the bishops, and their determination being "to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims," the question arises, What means did they employ to secure control of this power? Answer-The means of Sunday laws. They secured from Constantine the following Sunday law:-
The Emperor Constantine to Helpidius
"On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrates and people living in towns rest, and let all workshops be closed. Nevertheless, in the country, those engaged in the cultivation of land may freely and lawfully work, because it often happens that mother day is not so well fitted for sowing grain and planting vines; lest by neglect of the best time the bounty provided by Heaven should be lost. Given the seventh day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls, both for the second time." [a. d. 321.]
This was not the very first Sunday law that they secured; the first one has not survived. But though it has not survived, the reason for it has. Sozomen says tint it was "that the day might be devoted with less interruption to the purposes of devotion." And this statement of Sozomen's is indorsed by Neander ("Church History," Vol. II. p. 298). This reason given by Sozomen reveals the secret of the legislation; it shows that it was in behalf of the church, and to please the church.
By reading the above edict, it is seen that they started out quite moderately. They did not stop all work; only judges, townspeople, and mechanics were required to rest, while people in the country might freely and lawfully work. The emperor paraded his soldiers on Sunday, and required them to repeat in concert the following prayer:-
"Thee alone we acknowledge as the true God; thee we acknowledge as ruler; thee we invoke for help; from thee have we received the victory; through thee have we conquered our enemies; to thee are we indebted for our present blessings; from thee also we hope for future favors; to thee we will direct our prayer. We beseech thee, that thou wouldst preserve our Emperor Constantine and his pious sons in health and prosperity through the largest life."
This Sunday law of a. d. 321 continued until 386, when-
"Those older changes effected by the Emperor Constantine were more rigorously enforced, and, in general, civil transactions of every kind on Sunday were strictly forbidden. Whoever transgressed was to be considered, in fact, as guilty of sacrilege."-Neander, Id., p. 300.
Then as the people were not allowed to do any manner of work, they would play, and, as the natural consequence, the circuses and the theaters throughout the empire were crowded every Sunday. But the object of the law, from the first one that was issued, was that the day might be used for the purposes of devotion, and the people might go to church. Consequently, that this object might be met, there was another step to take, and it was taken. At a church convention held at Carthage in 401, the bishops passed a resolution to send up a petition to the emperor, praying-
"That the public shows might be transferred from the Christian Sunday, and from feast days, to some other days of the week."-Id.
And the reason given in support of the petition was,-
"The people congregate more to the circus than to the church."-Id., notes 5.
In the circuses and the theaters large numbers of men were employed, among whom many were church members. But, rather than to give up their jobs, they would work on Sunday. The bishops complained that these were compelled to work; they pronounced it persecution, and asked for a law to protect those persons from such "persecution." The church had become filled with a mass of people, unconverted, who cared vastly more for worldly interests and pleasures than they did for religion. And as the government was now a government of God, it was considered proper that the civil power should be used to cause all to show respect for God, whether or not they had any respect for him.
But as long as the people could make something by working on Sunday, they would work rather than go to church. A law was secured forbidding all manner of Sunday work. Then they would crowd the circuses and the theaters, instead of going to church. But this was not what the bishops wanted; this was not that for which all work had been forbidden. All work was forbidden in order that the people might go to church; but instead of that, they crowded to the circus and the theater, and the audiences of the bishops were rather slim. This was not at all satisfying to their pride; therefore the next step, and a logical one, too, was, as the petition prayed, to have the exhibitions of the circuses and the theaters transferred to some other days of the week, so that the churches and the theaters should not be open at the same time. For if both were open, the Christians(?), as well as others, not being able to go to both places at once, would go to the circus or the theater instead of to the church. Neander says:
"Owing to the prevailing passion at that time, especially in the large cities, to run after the various public shows, it so happened that when these spectacles fell on the same days which had been consecrated by the church to some religious festival, they proved a great hindrance to the devotion of Christians, though chiefly, it must be allowed, to those whose Christianity was the least an affair of the life and of the heart."-Id.
Assuredly! An open circus or theater will always prove a great hindrance to the devotion of those "Christians" whose Christianity is the least an affair of the life and of the heart. In other words, an open circus or theater will always be a great hindrance to the devotion of those who have not religion enough to keep them from going to it, but who only want to use the profession of religion to maintain their popularity and to promote their selfish interests. On the other hand, to the devotion of those whose Christianity is really an affair of the life and of the heart, an open circus or theater will never be a particle of hindrance, whether open at church time or all the time. But those people had not enough religion or love of right to do what they thought to be right; therefore they wanted the State to take away from them all opportunity to do wrong, so that they could all be Christians. Satan himself could be made that kind of Christian in that way; but he would be Satan still.
Says Neander again:-
"Church teachers ... were in truth often forced to complain that in such competitions the theater was vastly more frequented than the church."-Id.
And the church could not then stand competition; she wanted a monopoly. And she got it.
This petition of the Carthage convention could not be granted at once, but in 425 the desired law was secured; and to this also there was attached the reason that was given for the first Sunday law that ever was made, namely:-
"In order that the devotion of the faithful might be free from all disturbance."-Id., p. 301.
It must constantly be borne in mind, however, that the only way in which "the devotion of the faithful" was "disturbed" by these things was that, when the circus or the theater was open at the same time that the church was open, the "faithful" would go to the circus or the theater instead of to church, and, therefore, their "devotion" was "disturbed." And of course the only way in which the "devotion" of such "faithful" ones could be freed from all disturbance, was to close the circuses and the theaters at church time.
In the logic of this theocratical scheme, there was one more step to be taken. It came about in this way: First, the church had all work on Sunday forbidden, in order that the people might attend to things, divine. But the people went to the circus and the theater instead of to church. Then the church had laws enacted closing the circuses and the theaters, in order that the people might attend to things divine. But even then the people would not be devoted, nor attend to things divine, for they had no real religion. The next step to be taken, therefore, in the logic of the situation, was to compel them to be devoted-to compel them to attend to things divine. This was the next step logically to be taken, and it was taken. The theocratical bishops were equal to the occasion. They were ready with a theory that exactly met the demands of the case, and the great Catholic Church father and Catholic saint, Augustine, was the father of this Catholic saintly theory. He wrote:
"It is indeed better that men should he brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment, or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not, therefore, be neglected. Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain to the highest grade of religious development."-Schaff's Church History, Vol. II, sec. 27.
Of this theory Neander remarks:-
"It was by Augustine, then, that a theory was proposed and founded which .... contained the germ of that whole system of spiritual despotism, of intolerance and persecution, which ended in the tribunals of the Inquisition."-Church History, p. 217.
The history of the Inquisition is only the history of the carrying out of this infamous theory of Augustine's. But this theory is only the logical sequence of the theory upon which the whole series of Sunday laws was founded.
Then says Neander:-
"In this way the church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends."
This statement is correct. Constantine did many things to favor the bishops. He gave them and political preference. He made their decisions in disputed cases final, as the decision of Jesus Christ. But in nothing that he did for them did he give them power over those who did not belong to the church, to compel them to act as though they did, except in that one thing of the Sunday law. Their decisions, which he decreed to be final, were binding only on those who voluntarily chose that tribunal, and affected none others. Before this time if any who had repaired to the tribunal of the bishops were dissatisfied with the decision, they could appeal to the civil magistrate. This edict cut off that source of appeal, yet affected none but those who voluntarily chose the Constitution of the bishops. But in the Sunday law power was given to the church to compel those who did not belong to the church, and who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the church, to obey the commands of the church. In the Sunday law there was given to the church control of the civil power, that by it she could compel those who did not belong to the church to act as if they did. The history of Constantine's time may be searched through and through, and it will be found that in nothing did he give to the church any such power, except in this one thing-the Sunday law. Neander's statement is literally correct, that it was "in this way the church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends."
Here let us bring together more closely the direct hearing of these statements from Neander. First, he says of the carrying into effect of the theocratical theory of these bishops, that they made themselves dependent upon Constantine by their disputes, and "by their determination to use the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims." Then he mentions the first and second Sunday laws of Constantine; the Sunday law of 386; the Carthage convention, resolution, and petition of 401; and the law of 425 in response to this petition; and then, without a break, and with direct reference to these Sunday laws, he says, "In this way the church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends."
She started out with the determination to do it. She did it, and "in this way" she did it. And when she had secured control of the power of the State, she used it for the furtherance of her own aims, and that in her own despotic way, as announced in the inquisitorial theory of Augustine. The first step logically and inevitably led to the last, and the theocratical leaders in the movement had the cruel courage to follow the first step unto the last, as framed in the words of Augustine, and illustrated in the history of the Inquisition.
Look On That Picture, Then On This
In a preceding chapter we have given verbatim the congressional Sunday measure, and have discussed some of its features. As we have seen, it was forced upon Congress by the churches, even under threats. What, then, is the purpose of those who are working so strenuously to have Sunday fixed in the law, whether national law or State law?
At Elgin, Illinois, November 8, 1887, there was held a Sunday-law convention, which was but the first in a series of events that ended only with the congressional recognition and establishment of Sunday as the national "Christian sabbath." The doctrines and acts of this convention are, therefore, proper evidence in this inquiry.
This convention was "called by the members of the Elgin Association of Congregational Ministers and Churches, to consider the prevalent desecration of the sabbath, and its remedy." It was well attended by prominent ministers. In that convention the following resolutions were passed:-
"Resolved, That we recognize the Sabbath as an institution of God, revealed in nature and the Bible, and of perpetual obligation on all men; and also as a civil and American institution, bound up in vital and historical connection with the origin and foundation of our government, the growth of our polity, and necessary to be maintained in order for the preservation and integrity of our national system, and, therefore, as having a sacred claim on all patriotic American citizens."
"The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God" is what the commandment says, and that is whose it is. The word "sabbath" means rest. But the rest belongs to the one who tested Who rested?-God. From what?-From the work of creation. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," says the commandment. It is religious entirely. There is nothing either American or civil about it. It is the Lord's, and it is holy. If it is not kept holy, it is not kept at all. And being the Sabbath of the Lord-the Lord's day-it is to be rendered to the Lord, and not to Caesar. With its observance or nonobservance civil government can never of right have anything to do. The second resolution was this:
"Resolved, That we look with shame and sorrow on the non-observance of the sabbath by many Christian people, in that the custom prevails with them of purchasing sabbath newspapers, engaging in, and patronizing sabbath business and travel, and in many instances giving themselves to pleasure and self-indulgence, setting aside by neglect and indifference the great duties and privileges which God's day brings them."
That is a fact. They ought to be ashamed of it. But what do they do to rectify the matter? Do they resolve to preach the gospel better, to be more faithful themselves in bringing up the consciences of the people, by showing them their duty in regard to these things?-Oh, no. They resolve to do this:-
"Resolved, That we give our votes and support to those candidates or political officers who will pledge themselves to vote for the enactment and enforcing of statutes in favor of the civil sabbath."
Yes, they are ashamed and sorry that Christians will not act like Christians, and religiously; therefore they will compel them to act both morally and religiously by enforcing upon them a civilsabbath! But if men will not obey the commandment of God without being compelled to do it by the civil law, then when they obey the civil law, are they obeying God?-They are not. Do not these people, then, in that, put the civil law in the place of the law of God, and the civil government in the place of God?-They assuredly do. And that is always the effect of such attempts as this. It makes utter confusion of all civil and religious relations, and only adds hypocrisy to guilt, and increases unto more ungodliness.
There is another important consideration just here. They never intended to secure nor to enforce a civil Sunday, but a religious one wholly; for in all the discussions of that whole convention there was not a word said about a civil sabbath, except in two of these resolutions. In the discussions of the resolutions themselves everything was upon a religious basis. There is no such thing as a civil sabbath, and no man can argue three minutes in favor of Sunday or any other day as a civil sabbath without making it only what it is, religious wholly.
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:-
"You relegate moral instruction to the church, and then let all go as they please on Sunday, so that we cannot get at them."
And so they want the State to corral all the people on Sunday, that the preachers may get at them. That is what they wanted in the fourth century. They got it at last. The Sunday railway train must also be stopped, and for the same reason. In the Elgin convention Dr. Everts said:-
"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!"
It is not necessary to add any more statements, though whole pages of them might be cited; they are all in the same line. They all plainly show that the secret and real object of the whole Sunday-law movement is to get 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.
It was precisely the same way in the fourth century concerning the Sunday circus and theater. The people, even the church members, would go to these instead of to church; and even if any went to both, it must be confessed that the Roman circus or theater was not a very excellent dish 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 have a great many spectators and so break up a great many congregations. And as they hurried the spectators fast on to perdition, they had to be shut on Sunday, so as to keep "a great 'many congregations" out of perdition.
It is exceedingly difficult to see how a Sunday circus in the fourth century could hurry to perdition any one who did not attend it; or how a Sunday train in the nineteenth century can hurry to perdition any one who does not ride on it. And if any are hurried to perdition by this means, who is to blame: the Sunday train, or the ones who ride on 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.
Nor are they going to be content with a little. "Rev." W. F. Crafts, speaking before the United States Senate Committee, in April, 1888, in favor of the national Sunday law, said:-
"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."
This same trouble was experienced in the fourth century, also, between the circus or the theater and the church. The church could not stand competition. She would be content with nothing less than a monopoly, and she got it, precisely as these church managers are trying to get it. More than this, they want now, as they did then, the government to secure them in the enjoyment of a perpetual monopoly. At another point in the same speech Mr. Crafts referred to the proposed law as one for "protecting the church services from post office competition." Having secured the help of the government in confirming their monopolizing ambition, what then?-Nothing short of a complete and perpetual monopoly will satisfy them. This is proved by Dr. McAllister's words at Lakeside, Ohio, July, 1887, as follows:
"Let a man be what he may,-Jew, seventh-day observer of some other denomination, or those who do not believe in the Christian sabbath,-let the law apply to everyone, that there shall be no public desecration of the first day of the week, the Christian sabbath, the day of rest for the nation. They may hold any other day of the week as sacred, and observe it; but that day which is the one day in seven for the nation at large, let that not be publicly desecrated by anyone, by officer in the government, or by private citizen high or low, rich or poor."
There is much being said of the grasping, grinding greed of monopolies of many kinds; but of all monopolies on earth, the most grinding, the most greedy, the most oppressive, the most conscienceless, is a religious monopoly.
The New False Theocratical Theory
A theocratical theory of government was the basis of the religious legislation in the fourth century; it is the same now.
The Woman's Christian Temperance Union was, and is, one of the most active and influential bodies in the Sunday-law movement. The great majority of the "petitions" to Congress, except that of their seven-million-two-hundred-thousand-times-multiplied cardinal, were secured by the W. C. T. U. Official documents of that organization declare that"A true theocracy is yet to come, and the enthronement of Christ in law and lawmakers; hence I pray devoutly as a Christian patriot, for the ballot in the hands of women, and rejoice that the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union has so long championed this cause."-Monthly Reading for September, 1886.
And that-
"The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, local, State, national, and world-wide, has one vital, organic thought, one all-absorbing purpose, one undying enthusiasm, and that is that Christ shall be this world's king-yea, verily, this world's king in its realm of cause and effect,-king of its courts, its camps, its commerce,-king of its colleges and cloisters,-king of its customs and its constitutions.... The kingdom of Christ must enter the realm of law through the gateway of politics.... We pray heaven to give them [the old parties] no rest ... until they shall ... swear an oath of allegiance to Christ in polities, and march in one great army up to the polls to worship God."-President s Annual Address in Convention, Nashville, 1887.
Not only this, but the W. C. T. U. is allied with the National Reform Association, whose declared object has ever been to turn this republic into a "kingdom of God." In the Cincinnati National Reform Convention, 1872, Prof. J. R. W. Sloane, D.D., said:-
"Every government by equitable laws is a government of God. A republic thus governed is of him, through the people, and is as truly and really a theocracy as the commonwealth of Israel."
By the expression "government by equitable laws" Mr. Sloane and the National Reformers generally, mean such a government as the National Reformers seek to have established. According to their theory, our government as the fathers made it is not a government by equitable laws, but is entirely founded upon infidel and atheistic ideas. Consequently they wanted the Constitution religiously amended, and framed upon their ideas, so that it should be a government by equitable laws, and as truly and really a theocracy as was the commonwealth of Israel.
The Sunday-law Association also holds much the same theory. In the Elgin Sunday-law convention, Dr. Mandeville, of Chicago, said:-
"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."
Now Nehemiah was ruling there in a true theocracy, a government of God; the law of God was the law of the land, and God's will was made known by the written word and by the prophets. Therefore if Dr. Mandeville's argument is of any force at all, it is so only upon the claim of the establishment of a theocracy. With this idea the view of Mr. Crafts agrees precisely, and Mr. Crafts was general secretary for the National Sunday-law Union, in their national campaign for national recognition of the Sunday. He claims, as expressed in his own words, that-
"The preachers are the successors of the prophets."-Christian Statesman, July 5, 1888.
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. This is why they must needs attack the Declaration of Independence, and declare that "governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This deduction is made a certainty by the words of Professor Blanchard in the Elgin convention:-
"In this work we are undertaking for the Sabbath, we are the representatives of God."
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 a certainty.
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?
When they shall have stopped all Sunday work, 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? If not, why not? Having taken all the steps but this, will they not take this?-Of course they will. Human nature is the same now as it was in the fourth century. Politics is the same now as it was then. And as for religious bigotry, it knows no centuries; it knows no such thing as progress or enlightenment; it is ever the same. And in its control of civil power, the cruel results are also ever the same.
In other words, when they get the power to express, will they use the power? A sufficient answer to this would, seem to be the simple inquiry, If they do not intend to use the power, then why are they making such strenuous efforts to get it? But we are not left merely to this inquiry, nor yet to the argument, for an answer to the question; we have their own words. At a National Reform W. C. T. U. convention held at Lakeside, Ohio, in 1887, the following question was asked:
"Will not the National Reform movement result in persecution against those who on some points believe differently from the majority, even as the recognition of the Christian religion by the Roman power resulted in grievous persecution against true Christians?"
Answer, by Dr. McAllister:-
"Now notice the fallacy here. The recognition of the Roman Catholic religion by the State, made that State a persecuting power. Why?-Because the Roman Catholic religion is a persecuting religion. If true Christianity is a persecuting religion, then the acknowledgment of our principles by the State will make the State a persecutor. But if the true Christian religion is a religion of liberty, a religion that regards the rights of all, then the acknowledgment of those principles by the State will make the State the guardian of all men, and the State will be no persecutor. True religion never persecutes."
There is indeed a fallacy here; but it is not in the question; it is in the answer. That which made the Roman State a persecuting power, says the doctor, was its recognition of the Catholic religion, "which is a persecuting religion." But the Roman Catholic religion is not the only persecuting religion that has been in the world. Presbyterianism persecuted while John Calvin ruled in Geneva; it persecuted while the Covenanters ruled in Scotland; it persecuted while it held the power in England. Congregationalism persecuted while it had the power in New England. Episcopalianism persecuted in England and in Virginia. Every religion that has been allied with the civil power, or that has controlled the civil power, has been a persecuting religion; and such will always be the case.
Mr. McAllister's implied statement is true, that "true Christianity never persecutes;" but it is true only because true Christianity never will allow itself to be allied in any way with the civil power, or to receive any support from it. It is true because true Christianity will never allow itself the possession of any power by which anybody could be persecuted. The National Reform Association does propose to "enforce upon all, the laws of Christian morality;" it proposes to have the government adopt the National Reform religion, and then "lay its hand upon any religion that does not conform to it;" and it asserts that the civil power has the right "to command the consciences of men." Now any such thing carried into effect as is here plainly proposed by that association, can never be anything else than persecution.
But Mr. McAllister affirms that the National Reform movement, if successful, would not lead to persecution, "because true religion never persecutes." The doctor's argument amounts only to this: The National Reform religion is the true religion. True religion never persecutes. Therefore, to compel men to conform to the true religion,-that is, the religion that controls the civil power,-is not persecution!
In a. d. 556 Pope Pelagius called upon Narses to compel certain parties to obey the pope's command. Narses refused, on the ground that it would be persecution. The pope answered Narses' objection with this argument:-
"Be not alarmed at the idle talk of some, crying out against persecution, and reproaching the church, as if she delighted in cruelty, when she punishes evil with wholesome severities, or procures the salvation of souls. He alone persecutes who forces to evil. But to restrain men from doing evil, or to punish those who have done it, is not persecution, or cruelty, but love of mankind."-Bower's History of the Popes, Pelagius, A. D. 556.
Compare this with Dr. McAllister's answer, and find any difference in principle between them who can. There is no difference. The arguments are identical. It is the essential spirit of the Papacy which is displayed in both, and in that of Pope Pelagius no more than in that of Dr. McAllister.
Another question, or rather statement, was this:-
"There is a law in the State of Arkansas enforcing Sunday observance upon the people, and the result has been that many good persons have not only been imprisoned, but have lost their property, and even their lives." 47
Answer, by Dr. McAllister:-
"It is better that a few should suffer than that the whole nation should lose its sabbath."
This argument is identical with that by which the Pharisees in Christ's day justified themselves in killing him. It was said:-
"It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." John 11:50.
And then says the record:-
"Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death." Verse 53.
The argument used in support of the claim of right to use this power, is identical with that used by the Papacy in inaugurating her persecutions; the argument in justification of the use of the power is identical with that by which the murderers of Jesus Christ justified themselves in accomplishing that wicked deed; and if anybody thinks that these men in our day, proceeding upon the identical theory, in the identical way, and justifying their proceedings by arguments identical with those of the Papacy and the murderous Pharisees,-if anybody thinks that these men will stop short of persecution, he has vastly more confidence in apostate humanity than we have.
We need not multiply evidences further to show that this whole religio-political Sunday-law movement of our day is of the same piece with that in the fourth century. The theory is the same; the means and the arguments are the same in both; and two things that are so precisely alike in the making, will be exactly alike when they are made. That in the fourth century made the Papacy; and this in the nineteenth century makes a living likeness of the Papacy.
Sunday has no basis whatever as a civil institution; it never had any. And the only basis it has, or ever had, as a religious institution, is the authority of the Papacy. This is both the law and the literal truth in the case.
It was perfectly in order, therefore, for. Cardinal Gibbons to indorse a movement to give to Sunday the legal sanction and support of the United States Government, and thus secure the governmental recognition of the authority of the Papacy. The cardinal's indorsement has been heralded by the Sunday-law workers throughout the length and breadth of the land, as a mighty accession to the Sunday-law movement. And, as a matter of fact, it is a mighty accession; but to what purpose? The following letter from the cardinal to Mr. E. E. Franke, of Jersey City, N. J., will show:-Cardinal's Residence, 408 North Charles St., Baltimore. Md., October 3, 1889.
"Dear Mr. Franke: At the request of his eminence, the cardinal, I write to assure you that you are correct in your assertion that Protestants in observing the Sunday are following, not the Bible, which they take as their only rule of action, but the tradition of the church. I defy them to point out to me the word 'Sunday' in the Bible; if it is not to be found there, and it cannot be, then it is not the Bible which they follow in this particular instance, but tradition, and in this they flatly contradict themselves.
"The Catholic Church changed the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, because the most memorable of Christ's works was accomplished on Sunday. It is needless for me to enter into any elaborate proof of the matter. They cannot prove their point from Scripture; therefore, if sincere, they must acknowledge that they draw their observance of the Sunday from tradition, and are therefore weekly contradicting themselves. "Yours very sincerely, M. A. Reardon."
This shows that it is as a Roman Catholic, securing honor to an institution of the Papacy, and thus to the Papacy itself that Cardinal Gibbons has indorsed the national Sunday-law movement. The cardinal understands what he is doing a great deal better than Mr. Crafts, Mrs. Bateham, et al., understand what they were dong. And, further, the cardinal understands what they are doing a great deal better than they themselves do. This also shows that those who signed the petition for a Sunday law, as the cardinal did, were honoring the Papacy, as the cardinal was.
How appropriate, therefore, it is 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 thing. 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 now to secure control of the civil power 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 this thing-this Catholic Sunday, this "miner and sapper" of a religious despotism, this "coach" of the Inquisition-this thing it is that the Congress of the United States has taken up from the combined "Protestantism" of the United States and interpreted into the commandment of God and fixed in the legislation of the nation as "the Christian sabbath"! In view of all these things, why should not Rome triumph?
And now the Catholic Church itself is taking the lead in enforcing respect for the Sunday by law. The Northwestern Chronicle, Archbishop Ireland's organ, April 5, 1895, announced the organization of a "Sunday-law Observance League," and prints an address to the W. C. T. U. and all friends of the American Sabbath, concluding with the following appeal:-
"All W. C. T. U.'s and Y.'s, churches, pastors, young people's societies, temperance organizations, Law and Order Leagues, and individuals, are called upon to help maintain our sabbath as a day of the Lord for the people, without regard to race, sex, or condition, for a day of rest and worship. To this end let us make sabbath observance week in Minnesota marked by sermons, public meetings, Sunday school exercises, distribution of literature, and prayer for the better enforcement of law against all infringement of the right of sabbath observance, and particularly against that arch-enemy of God and man, the saloon."
From the origin and history of Sunday laws, this was, of course, to be expected sooner or later. And now that this, as well as all the rest of the machinery of a religious despotism, has been made ready to her hand, it is not surprising that she assumes the leadership and sounds the bugle for the general advance.