The Catholic Church claims infallibility. This claim springs directly, and logically too, from her claim of the prerogative of interpreter of the Scriptures.
As we have seen, the Congress of the United States has also assumed and exercised this prerogative. With Congress, as certainly as with the Papacy, the assumption of this prerogative carries with it the assertion of infallibility. This action, of itself, therefore, placed Congress directly upon Roman ground.
This action of Congress, however, was merely the legislative formula giving authority to the interpretation already determined upon by combined "Protestantism." This, therefore, was nothing else than the recognition, and the setting up, by "Protestantism" in the United States, of a human tribunal charged with the interpretation of Scripture, with the authoritative enforcement of that interpretation by governmental power. This proceeding, therefore, placed the combined "Protestantism" of the country altogether and thoroughly upon papal ground.
If this thing had been done by the Papacy; if she had thus forced herself and her interpretation of Scripture upon Congress, and thus got her religious notions fixed in the law to be forced upon the people; there could be no surprise at it. In so doing the Papacy would have been only acting according to her own native character, and carrying out her avowed principles. But for professed Protestantism to do it, is in positive contradiction of every principle that the term Protestantism justly implies. Bryce's arraignment of Protestantism on this point is well deserved, and is decidedly applicable here:
"The principles which had led the Protestants to sever themselves from the Roman Church should have taught them to bear with the opinions of others, and warned them from the attempt to connect agreement in doctrine or manner of worship with the necessary forms of civil government. Still less ought they to have enforced that agreement by civil penalties, for faith, upon their own showing, had no value save when it was freely given. A church which does not claim to be infallible is bound to allow that some part of the truth may possibly be with its adversaries; a church which permits or encourages human reason to apply itself to revelation, has no right first to argue with people and then to punish them if they are not convinced.
"But whether it was that men only half saw what they had done; or that, finding it hard enough to unrivet priestly fetters, they welcomed all the aid a temporal prince could give; the result was that religion, or, rather, religious creeds, began to be involved with politics more closely than had ever been the case before. Through the greater part of Christendom wars of religion raged for a century or more, and down to our own days feelings of theological antipathy continue to affect the relations of the powers of Europe. In almost every country the form of doctrine which triumphed associated itself with the State, and maintained the despotic systemof the Middle Ages, while it forsook the grounds on which that system had been based.
"It was thus that there arose national churches, which were to be to the several. Protestant countries of Europe that which the Church Catholic had been to the world at large; churches, that is to say, each of which was to be coextensive with its respective State, was to enjoy landed wealth and exclusive political privilege, and was to be armed with coercive powers against recusants. It was not altogether easy to find a set of theoretical principles on which such churches might be made to rest; for they could not, like the old church, point to the historical transmission of their doctrines; they could not claim to have in any one man, or body of men, an infallible organ of divine truth; they could not even fall back upon general councils, or the argument, whatever it may be worth, 'Securus indicat orbis terrarum.'
"But in practice these difficulties were soon got over, for the dominant party in each State, if it was not infallible, was at any rate quite sure that it was right, and could attribute the resistance of other sects to nothing but moral obliquity. The will of the sovereign, as in England, or the will of the majority, as in Holland, Scandinavia, and Scotland, imposed upon each country a peculiar form of worship, and kept up the practices of medieval intolerance without their justification.
"Persecution, which might be at least excused in an infallible, Catholic, and apostolic church, was peculiarly odious when practiced by those who were not Catholic; who were no more apostolic than their neighbors; and who had just revolted from the most ancient and venerable authority, in the name of rights which they now denied to others. If union with the visible church by participation in a material sacrament be necessary to eternal life, persecution may be held a duty a kindness to perishing souls. But if the kingdom of heaven be in every sense a kingdom of the spirit, if saving faith be possible out of one visible body and under a diversity of external forms, persecution becomes at once a crime and a folly.
"Therefore the intolerance of Protestants, if the forms it took were less cruel than those practiced by the Roman Catholics, was also far less defensible; for it had seldom anything better to allege on its behalf than motives of political expediency, or more often the mere headstrong passion of a ruler or a faction, to silence the expression of any opinions but their own.... And hence it is not too much to say that the ideas ... regarding the duty of the magistrate to compel uniformity in doctrine and worship by the civil arm, may all be traced to the relation which that theory established between the Roman Church and the Roman Empire; to the conception, in fact, of an empire church itself."-Holy Roman Empire, chapter 18; par. 8.
This shows how certainly the professed Protestantism and the Government of the United States have put themselves upon papal ground.
The Pivot of Infallibility
Nor yet is this all. This prerogative of interpreting the Scripture was exercised by the professed Protestantism and the Congress of the United States, in the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath of the Lord as it stands written in the commandment of God. And this is precisely the thing-the very point-upon which turns the argument for the validity of the claim of infallibility on the part of the Papacy.
The supreme point that marks the difference between Protestantism and the Papacy is, whether the Bible, and the Bible alone, or the Bible and tradition, is the true standard of faith and morals. "The Bible, and the Bible alone," is the claim of Protestantism. "The Bible and tradition" is the claim of Catholicism. And this term "tradition" in the Catholic system does not mean merely antiquity, "but continuing inspiration. "And this "continuing inspiration" is but another form of expression for "infallibility."
This question as to "the Bible and tradition" was not finally settled even for Catholicism until the Council of Trent. It was one of the leading questions of that council as between Protestantism and Catholicism; and it was in the settlement of the question as between these, that it was finally settled for the Catholic Church itself.
The very first question concerning the faith that was considered in the council was the one involved in this issue. There was a strong party, even of the Catholics, in the council, who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scripture only as the standard of authority in faith and morals. This was so largely and so decidedly held in the council that the pope's legates wrote to him that there was "a strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether, and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal."-Encyclopedia Britannica, Trent, Council of.
To do this, however, would certainly be to go a long way toward admitting the claims of the Protestants, and this would never do. This crisis, however, forced the ultra-Catholic portion of the council to find some way of convincing the others that "Scripture and tradition" was the only sure ground to stand upon. Although two decrees were passed April 8, 1546, favoring the view of "Scripture and tradition," yet this was not satisfactory. The question kept constantly recurring in the counsel; many of those who had sustained the decrees were very uneasy about it. Accordingly Dr. Holtzmann writes thus:
"The council was unanimously of the opinion of Ambrosius Pelargus that at no price should any triumph be prepared for the Protestants to be able to say that the council had condemned the teachings of the old church. But this practice caused endless trouble, without ever giving good security. Indeed, it required for this crisis that 'almost divine sagacity' which the Spanish legate ceded to the synod on March 15, 1562....
"Finally, at the opening of the last session, January 18, 1562, all scruples were cast aside; the archbishop of Rheggio made a speech, in which he openly declared that tradition stood higher than the Bible. For this reason alone the authority of the church could not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the former had changed the Sabbath into Sunday-not by the commandment of Christ, but solely by her own authority. This destroyed the last illusion, and it was hereby declared that tradition signified not so much antiquity, but rather continuing inspiration."-Canon and Tradition, p. 263.
This particular part of the archbishop's speech was as follows:-
"The condition of the heretics nowadays is such that they do not appeal to anything more than this [the Bible, and the Bible alone; the Scriptures, as in the written word, the sole standard in faith and morals], to overthrow the church under the pretext of following the word of God. Just as though the church-the body-were in conflict with the word of Christ; or as if the head could be against the body. Indeed, this very authority of the church is most of all glorified by the Holy Scriptures; for while on the one hand the church recommends the word of God, declaring it to be divine, and presenting it to us to read, explaining doubtful points and faithfully condemning all that runs counter thereto; on the other hand, by the same authority, the church, the legal precepts of the Lord, contained in the Holy Scriptures, have ceased. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been merged into the Lord's day.... This day and similar institutions have not ceased in consequence of the preaching of Christ (for he says that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it); but yet they have been changed, and that solely by the authority of the church. Now, if this authority should be done away with (which would please the heretics very much), who would there be to testify for the truth and to confound the obstinacy of the heretics?"-Id.
There was no getting around this; for the Protestants' own confession of faith,-the Augsburg Confession, 1530,-had clearly admitted that "the observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the church" only. As Dr. Holtzmann says, this argument "destroyed the last illusion," because as it was clear that in observing Sunday upon the appointment of the church, instead of the Sabbath which stood in the written commandment of the Lord himself, the Protestants themselves held not to "the Bible and the Bible alone," but to the Bible and tradition, with tradition above the Bible. By this fact and this argument, the uneasy minds in the council were set completely at rest, and the question as between "the Bible and the Bible alone," or "the Bible and tradition," was finally settled in the Catholic Church.
Therefore the papal position is constructed thus: (a) The Scripture and tradition is the faith of the Papacy; (b) tradition means "continuing inspiration;" (c) continuing inspiration means infallibility in matters of faith and morals; (d) and this is demonstrated in the fact of her having substituted Sunday for the Sabbath of the Lord in the written commandment. And thus it is that the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath is the pivot upon which turns the validity of the argument as against Protestants, for the infallibility of the Papacy.
This shows how fully the Protestantism and the Congress of the United States put themselves upon papal ground, in their first essay in the exercise of the prerogative of authoritative interpreter of the Scripture. They did it precisely in the likeness of the Papacy by substituting Sunday for the Sabbath of the Lord as in the written commandment.
And this is why it is that the Papacy is taking the advantage which she has already taken, and in following it up to whatever extent that she may, is only acting straightforwardly upon her own native and abiding principles. In this respect the Papacy is not in anywise to blame for what she has already done, nor for what she may do upon this basis in the times to come. For assuredly if papal principles are to prevail, who is better qualified, who has a better right, to apply these principles than the Papacy herself? Since the Government of the United States has been set bodily upon papal principles in the interpretation of the Constitution, in the authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures, and in the adoption of the very sign of papal infallibility itself, who, then, is so well qualified to guide the government and the nation in the new path, as is she who for nearly sixteen hundred years has steadily traveled that path?
The One Great Question Now
The conclusion of the whole matter the sum of all that has been said, or that can be said, on the subject, is that the principles of the Government of the United States as regards religion and the State, are no longer American, but Roman; no longer Protestant, but papal; no longer Christian, but antichristian. And the question now to be decided by every man, woman, and child in the nation is whether they will be American, Protestant, and Christian, or whether they will be Roman, papal, and antichristian. Every person is now absolutely shut up to the decision of this question. The very course of events will force every soul to the decision of this question-each one for himself. The people can no more escape this issue than they can get out of the world.
As the matter now stands, every person in the United States is shut up to just one of two things: Either to assent to governmental interpretations and interference in religious matters, or decidedly to protest against it; either to assent to that which has already been done, and to the like of which is to follow, to be plastered on, layer after layer, till the whole nation shall be groaning under the curse of a religious despotism equal to that of the Dark Ages, or else decidedly to protest against, and refuse any kind of assent to, that which has been done, which is being done, or any such that may follow in any shape whatever.
The historian of the Reformation has well remarked that "the establishment of a tribunal charged with the interpretation of the Bible, had terminated only in slavishly subjecting man to man in what should be most unfettered,-conscience and faith."-D'Aubigne, Book XIII, chapter 6. Revolt from thisthing in the sixteenth century was the emancipation of mankind.
When the attempt was made, by means of a Supreme Court decision perverting the Constitution, to accomplish throughout the whole nation the enslavement of man to man in all his bodily interests-for even the slaveholder left free the conscience and faith of his slaves-uncompromising opposition to it was the emancipation of a whole race and the assured freedom of the nation.
And now, when by both these means-when by a Supreme Court decision perverting the Constitution, and the establishment of a tribunal charged with the interpretation of the Bible-this powerful attempt is made to bring about once more the enslavement of man to man in that which should be most unfettered, conscience and faith, nothing less than absolutely uncompromising opposition to this thing in every phase of it from beginning to end-can secure the liberty of the individual, of the nation, or of mankind.
And who can refuse uncompromisingly to oppose it? With the example of Christianity as it started in the world; of the Reformation as it arose in the sixteenth century; of the fathers who made this nation; of the opposition to, and not merely the reversal, but the annihilation of, the Dred Scott decision-with all this history and all these examples before us, which the conscience and better judgment of all men approve, how can any man hesitate to enlist all his energies of body, soul, and spirit, in uncompromising opposition to this monstrous evil so treacherously conceived and so powerfully maintained?
So much for the necessity of such opposition. But as this book is a study of the rights of the people, it will be proper here to set forth the rights by which the people, with courage, consistency, and righteousness, can inaugurate, and forever carry on, this uncompromising opposition.
Divine Right
It is the divine right of every man to believe or not believe, to be religious or not religious, as he shall choose for himself. God himself, in Jesus Christ, has said: "if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:47, 48. Thus the God of heaven, the Author of Christianity, has left every soul free to believe or not believe, to receive or reject, his words, as the man may choose for himself. And when any man chooses not to believe, and chooses to reject his word, the Lord does not condemn him.
Whoever, therefore, would presume to exercise jurisdiction over the religious belief or observances of any man, or would compel any man to conform to the precepts of any religion, or to comply with the ceremonies of any religious body, or would condemn any man for not so complying, does in that thing put himself above Jesus Christ, and, indeed, above God, for he exercises a prerogative which God himself refuses to exercise.
The word of God is the word of life. To whomsoever that word comes, whosoever heareth it, to him in that word there comes life from God-eternal life. Then he who rejects that word rejects life. He who rejects life does in that very thing choose death. And he who chooses death by the rejection of life does in that pass judgment of death upon himself. And so it stands written, "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life," etc. Acts 13:46. Thus it is that God judges no man for rejecting his word; and this is how it is that that word shall judge men in the last day. "In that day" that word of life will stand there as the witness to all that eternal life came to all, but was rejected, and nothing but death remains. And when the death is received, each one receives simply what he has chosen, and in that the God of love does not condemn, but is sorry instead.
Now to the Christian church is committed this word of life as she is sent into the world. She is to "preach the word." To her it is written, "Do all things without murmurings and disputings; that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of life." Philippians 2:14-16. Thus the true church is in the world "in Christ's stead" (2 Corinthians 5:20), to hold forth, to bring to men, the word of life. In so doing she judges no one, she condemns no one, she sets at naught no one, for she "is subject unto Christ" in everything (Ephesians 5:24), and he ever says, "If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge [condemn] him not."
In this word Christ also establishes the divine right of every man, at his own free choice, to dissent from, and to disregard in every way, any doctrine, dogma, ordinance, rite, or institution of any church on earth. And no man can ever rightly be molested or disquieted in any way whatever in the free exercise of this divine right.
A Subtle Subterfuge
Professedly this right has always been recognized by both Catholicism and the different sects of Protestantism, but in nearly every instance the profession of recognition of the right has been only a pretense; for, while professing to recognize the right in one way, in another way, and by a sheer subterfuge, it has been denied and attempt made to sweep it entirely away. This subterfuge is for the church to get her dogmas or institutions recognized in the law, and then demand obedience to the law, throwing upon the dissenter the odium of "lawlessness and disrespect for the constituted authorities," while she poses as the champion of "law and order," the "conservator of the State, and the stay of society"!
Of all the hypocritical pretenses that were every employed, this is perhaps the subtlest, and is certainly the meanest. It flourished throughout the Middle Ages, when anything and everything that the church could invent was thus forced upon the people. Its slimy trail can be traced throughout the history of the "Protestant" sects, in thus forcing upon the people such peculiar institutions as were characteristic of the sect that could obtain control of the law. And now it is made to flourish again, by all the sects together, in thus forcing upon the people the one thing in which they are all agreed, and in which they have obtained control of the law, 48 the observance of Sunday, "the Christian sabbath," supported by such auxiliary organizations, such wheels within wheels, as the National Reform Association, the American Sabbath Union, the "Law and Order Leagues," the "Civic Federations," W. C. T. U., Y. M. C A., Y. P. S. C. E., and so on through the rest of the alphabet.
Sunday, not only according to their own showing, but by every other fair showing that can be made, is a religious institution, a church institution, only. This they all know as well as they know anything. And yet every one of these organizations, principal or auxiliary, is working constantly to get this church institution fixed, and more firmly fixed, in the law, with penalties attached that are more worthy of barbarism than of civilization; and then, when anybody objects to it, they all cry out that "it is not a question of religion, it is simply a question of law. We are not asking any religious observance; all that we ask is respect for law"!!
The Christian, Protestant, and American answer to all this is that neither the Sunday institution nor any other religious or ecclesiastical institution, has any right to a place in the law. And even when it is put into the law, this does not take away the right of dissent. The divine right of dissent from religious or ecclesiastical institutions abides ever the same; whether the institution is out of the law or in the law. And when the institution is fixed in the law, the right of dissent then extends to that law. The subterfuge cannot destroy the right.
The Courts Indorse the Subterfuge
From the church organizations the courts have caught up this cry. And, though acknowledging that the Sunday institution is religious; that it is enacted and enforced at the will of the church; and that the logic of it is the union of Church and State; yet they insist that, as it is in the law, and the law is for the public good, no right of dissent can be recognized, but the dissenter "may be made to suffer for his defiance by persecutions, if you call them so, on the part of the great majority." 49
This argument is as old as is the contest for the right of the free exercise of religious belief. It was the very position occupied by Rome when the disciples of Christ were sent into the world to preach religious freedom to all mankind. Religious observances were enforced by the law. The Christians asserted and maintained the right to dissent from all such observances, and, in fact, from every one of the religious observances of Rome, and to believe religiously for themselves, though in so doing they totally disregarded the laws, which, on the part of the Roman State, were held to be beneficial to the population. Then, as now, it was held that, though religious belief was the foundation of the custom, yet this was no objection to it, because it had become a part of the legal system of the government, and was enforced by the State for its own good. 50 But Christianity then refused to recognize any validity in any such argument, and so it does now.
When Paganism was supplanted by the Papacy in the Roman Empire, the same argument was again brought forth to sustain the papal observances which were enforced by imperial law; and through the whole period of papal supremacy Christianity still refused to recognize any validity whatever in the argument.
Under the Calvinistic theocracy of Geneva the same argument was again used in behalf of religious oppression. In England the same argument was used against the Puritans and other dissenters in behalf of religious oppression there. In New England, under the Puritan theocracy; the same argument was used in behalf of religious oppression, and to justify the Congregationalists, who had control of legislation, in compelling the Baptists and the Quakers, under penalty of banishment and even of death, to conform to the religious observances of the Congregationalists.
"The rulers of Massachusetts put the Quakers to death and banished the Antinomians and 'Anabaptists,' not because of their religious tenets, but because of their violations of the civil laws. This is the justification which they pleaded, and it was the best they could make. Miserable excuse! But just so it is; wherever there is such a union of church and State, heresy and heretical practices are apt to become violations of the civil code, and are punished no longer as errors in religion, but infractions of the laws of the land. So the defenders of the Inquisition have always spoken and written in justification of that awful and most iniquitous tribunal."-Baird's Religion in America, p. 91, note.
In short, this argument-this "miserable excuse"-whether made by churches or by courts, is the same old serpent (Revelation 12:9, 12, 14) that tortured the Christians to death under Pagan Rome; that burnt. John Huss at Constance, and Michael Servetus at Geneva; that whipped and banished the Baptists, and banished and hanged the Quakers, in New England. Whether used by the Roman State and the Catholic Church, or by other States and other churches, in the early centuries or in these last years of the nineteenth century of the Christian era, that argument is ever the same old serpent, and Christianity has always refused to recognize any validity whatever in it, and it always will.
The State a Partisan of the Church
We have proved by the express words of Christ the divine right of dissent in all religious things: that any man has the divine right to dissent from any and every religious doctrine or observance of any body on earth. So long as civil government keeps its place, and requires of men only those things which pertain to Caesar,-things civil,-so long there will be neither dissent nor disagreement, but peace only, between the government and all Christian sects or subjects. But just as soon as civil government adopts any church institution and makes it a part of the law, it makes itself the partisan of a religious party, and sets itself up as the champion of religious observances. And just then this right of dissent in religious things is extended to the authority of the government, in so far as that authority is thus exercised. And so far there will be dissent on the part of every Christian in the government.
Let it be repeated: When the State undertakes to enforce the observance of any church ordinance or institution, and thus makes itself the champion and partisan of the church, then the inalienable right of men to dissent from church doctrines and to disregard church ordinances and institutions, is extended to the "authority" of theState in so far as it is thus exercised. The "authority" of the State in such case is just no authority at all; because no earthly government can ever by any pretext have any authority in matters of religion or religious observances.
Sunday observance is in itself religious, and religious only. The institution is wholly ecclesiastical. The creation of the institution was for religious purposes only. The first law of government enforcing its observance was enacted with religious intent; such has been the character of every Sunday law that ever was made, and such its character is now recognized to be by both churches and courts. It is therefore the divine right of every man utterly to ignore the institution, to disregard its observance, and to dissent from the authority which instituted or enjoins it. And when any State or civil government makes itself the partisan of the ecclesiastical body which instituted it, and the champion of the ecclesiastical authority which enjoins it, and enacts laws to compel men to respect it and observe it, that State does attempt to compel submission to church authority, and conformity to church discipline, and does thereby invade the inalienable right of dissent from church authority and church discipline. If the State can rightfully do this in one thing, it can do so in all; and therefore in doing this it does, in principle and in effect, destroy all freedom of religious thought and action. Men are thereby compelled either to submit to be robbed of their inalienable right of freedom of thought in religious things, or else to disregard the authority of the State. And no Christian, and no man of sound principle and honest conviction, will ever hesitate as to which of the two things he will do.
Thus it is clear that by divine right every man can, with courage, consistency, and righteousness, engage in uncompromising opposition to this movement to establish a national religious despotism.
The Natural and Constitutional Right
This is also the natural right of every man. On this read again paragraph 1 of the "Memorial and Remonstrance of the People of Virginia," page 95; the "Act Establishing Freedom of Religion in Virginia," page 90; and the points on pages 52-55.
This is also the constitutional right of every man in the United States. This has been demonstrated in chapter 5.
Here, however, is where the issue is joined. Here is where the crisis is reached. Because the Supreme Courts of all the States that have such laws have declared them to be constitutional; 51 a Circuit Court of the United States has declared that "persecution" in the States accordingly is "due process of law;" and the United States Supreme Court has declared that "the establishment of the Christian religion," is the meaning of the national Constitution, and that, accordingly, "this is a Christian nation." So far, therefore, as Supreme Courts are concerned-State and national-this constitutional right has been swept away.
As for the inferior courts in the States-the judges, justices, prosecuting attorneys, etc.-instead of reading the Constitution for themselves and supporting it, as they have taken a solemn oath to do, they take somebody else's reading of it and support somebody else's interpretation of it, while their own conscience, their own sober judgment, and the plain word of the Constitution, all tell them that such interpretation is clearly wrong. 52 They argue that as "the Supreme Court has decided that the law is constitutional, it is not for us to decide differently, whatever our own views of the case may be," etc.
General Jackson, when President of the United States, recognized no such doctrine. The Supreme Court declared to be constitutional a law which, as such, fell to him for enforcement. Stern Old Hickory refused to enforce it. He argued, and rightly, that he had taken no oath to support Supreme Court decisions, or other people's interpretation of the Constitution, but the Constitution itself, and declared the American fundamental principle that
"Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others."
The nation stood by General Jackson in this, and completely killed that decision, and the law which it pronounced constitutional. Again, the soundness of this principle, and the unsoundness of this position taken by the inferior courts, is seen from the following:-
"To whom does it belong to interpret the Constitution?-Any question arising in a legal proceeding as to the meaning and application of this fundamental law will evidently be settled by the courts of law. Every court is equally bound to pronounce, and competent to pronounce, on such questions, a State court no less than a Federal court; but as all the more important questions are carried by appeal to the Supreme Federal Court, it is practically that court whose opinion finally determines them." 53
"The so-called 'power of annulling an unconstitutional statute' is a duty rather than a power, and a duty incumbent on the humblest State court when a case raising the point comes before it, no less than on the Supreme Federal Court at Washington. When, therefore, people talk, as they sometimes do, even in the United States, of the Supreme Court as 'the guardian of the Constitution,' they mean nothing more than that it is the final court of appeal, before which suits involving constitutional questions may be brought up by the parties for decision. In so far the phrase is legitimate. But the functions of the Supreme Court are the same in kind as those of all other courts, State as well as Federal. Its duty and theirs is simply to declare and apply the law; and when any court, be it a State court of first instance, or the Federal court of last instance, finds a law of lower authority [the legislature] clashing with a law of higher authority [the Constitution], it must reject the former as being really no law, and enforce the latter."-Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 374, 252.
Failure of the Sworn Agents of the People
This is fundamental, American, constitutional ground. And it is not only a fearful thing, but a treacherous thing as well, for any officer, chosen by the people and therefore responsible to the people, to give his oath to the people to stand faithful to their instructions as given to him in the Constitution, and then ignore and abandon these instructions altogether, putting between himself and the people another set of the servants of the people-who, equally with himself, are responsible to the people-and adopt their interpretations instead of the plain words of the Constitution which he has given his oath to support. An illustration will be in place. The people of Tennessee in the Bill of Rights of their Constitution have said this:-
"Sec. 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religions establishment or mode of worship."
Now to say that these instructions need to be interpretedis an insult to anybody who can read the English language. They need only to be accepted as they stand. Yet, in spite of these plain words, a Sunday law is on the statute books of that State, and the State Supreme Court has declared it to be constitutional, because "Christianity is part of the common law" of that State. Thus that Supreme Court by its interpretation has given preference by common law to the Christianmode of worship, in spite of the plain words that no such thing shall ever be done. The other courts and officers of the State who have sworn to support that Constitution, have, instead, adopted and supported this interpretation: and for years Christian men have been indicted by the dozen, and prosecuted, fined, and imprisoned solely for disregarding Sunday, which is a part of the "Christianity" which by this interpretation is made part of the common law of that State.
This is but a fair sample of the judicial situation in all the States of the Union, with the exception of two or three at most. And all on account of Supreme Court decisions strictly analogous to this, supported by officials who forget their oath to support the Constitution, and, instead, blindly support decisions which are absolutely subversive of the Constitution and of all the rights of the people.
The Remedy
When the servants of the people who have been selected and sworn for the sole purpose of maintaining the constitutional provisions which the people have established for the security of their rights, fail so completely to do what they have been appointed to do, and really subvert the Constitution instead of support it, then the right to do this themselves, in their own proper persons, rests by a double tenure with the people.
First, it is always the right and just prerogative of the people to set the actions of these servants alongside of the Constitution and judge whether they have indeed supported it or failed to support it. Remember the words of Dickinson, quoted on page 144, that "the people must restore things to that order from which their functionaries have departed;" and of Wilson, on page 80, that "the supreme power resides in the people, and they never part with it;" the words of Bryce, quoted on pages 150, 151, that "the people censure any interpretation which palpably departs from the old lines;" and the words of Lincoln, quoted on page 141, that "the people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts; not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
This right rests always with the people, for them freely to exercise. But when the agents which they have appointed for the very purpose of detecting unconstitutional laws, and protecting the people from their injustice-when these agents themselves not only fail to do this, but actually aid in fastening unconstitutional statutes upon the people, then the right of the people to test the statutes by the Constitution, being "incapable of annihilation," 54 returns to the people, and rests with them, by additional tenure, and it then of right devolves upon the people, themselves and for themselves, and each one for himself, to decide the case, declare such law unconstitutional and void, and treat it so in all their actions.
This is not to say, nor even to imply, that every man is at liberty to disregard, or disrespect, whatever action of the government he may not personally agree with. It is to say that it is absolutely incumbent on every citizen to be so well read in the Constitution and the Declaration that he shall know for himself the limitations upon the government, and act accordingly. Every citizen must hold himself, as well as the government, strictly to the Constitution. The Constitution is a limitation, not, indeed, upon the power of the people, except in the prescribed way, but upon the passions and caprices of the people. This is sound American principle. It is the fundamental principle of a government of the people. Let it not be forgotten that one of the chief fathers of this nation, Alexander Hamilton, in persuading the ratification of the Constitution, declared that-
"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society.... In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly he said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger."-Federalist LI.
And another of these, James Madison, nobly said:-
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits."-Federalist XLVIII.
And when the agents of the people, appointed under the forms of constitutional government, take the very unconstitutional course that brings about just the anarchy and elective despotism here pointed out, then it is the right of the people, by this double tenure, to see to it that such unconstitutional laws and proceedings are disregarded, and the Constitution made to prevail. This is further sustained by authority. Let all read carefully the following passages, which are equally applicable to Legislatures and State constitutions as to Congress and the national Constitution:-
"The supreme law-making power is the people, that is, the qualified voters, acting in a prescribed way. The people have by their supreme law, the Constitution, given to Congress a delegated and limited power of legislation. Every statute passed under that power conformably to the Constitution, has all the authority of the Constitution behind it. Any statute passed which goes beyond that power is invalid and incapable of enforcement. It is in fact not a statute at all, because Congress in passing it was not really a law-making body, but a mere group of private persons.
"Says Chief Justice Marshall: 'The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if those limits may at any time be passed, by those intended to be restrained? The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like any other acts, is alterable when the Legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law. If the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.'
"A statute passed by Congress beyond the scope of its powers is of no more effect than a by-law made ultra vires by an English municipality."
"If the subordinate body attempts to transcend the power committed to it, and makes rules for other purposes or under other conditions than those specified by the superior authority, these rules are not law, but are null and void. Their validity depends on their being within the scope of the law-making power conferred by the superior authority, and as they have passed outside that scope they are invalid.... They ought not to be obeyed or in any way regarded by the citizens, because they are not law."
"Not merely Congress alone, but also Congress and the President conjoined [and the Supreme Court also-A. T. J.], are subject to the Constitution, and cannot move a step outside the circle which the Constitution has drawn around them. If they do, they transgress the law and exceed their powers. Such acts as they may do in excess of their powers are void, and may be, indeed ought to be, treatedas void by the meanest citizen."-Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 245, 246, 243, 36.
It is impossible to demonstrate more clearly or to present more forcibly the truth that the constitutional right of the people is absolute, to disregard every Sunday law or other religious or ecclesiastical thing that is made a part of the common or any other law. And by this absolute constitutional right every person can, with courage, consistency, and righteousness, carry on uncompromising opposition to the religious despotism that is fastening itself upon the country.
Stand With Anybody That Stands Right
There is another "argument" used by the movers for this religious despotism, to combat which requires no assurance of any particular right,' but which does require more courage than a great many people are willing to show. That is the "argument" of sneers and jeers and denunciation-the ready application of the epithets "infidel," "atheist," "enemy of Christianity," "enemy of the government," "despiser of the flag," "traitor," "anarchist," and, above all, and to the mind of those who use it worst of all, "Seventh-day Adventist." 55 Every person who would oppose the encroachments of this religious despotism, on the only ground upon which it can be successfully opposed, may expect to have these epithets hurled at him and rained upon him. True and righteous though this opposition be by every possible count, yet this is what those certainly meet from the church-combination, who do make this opposition. If anyone doubts this, only let him sincerely engage in it for a little while.
Yet all that is required to meet and defeat all this "argument" is only the courage of conviction, the courage of principle. Jefferson, Madison, and those with them who in that day engaged in this same cause, had to meet it. When the "Act Establishing Religious Freedom" was published in Italian and French, and was distributed through Europe, as related on page 104, Jefferson wrote home to Madison that it had thus "been the best evidence of the falsehood of those reports which stated us to be in anarchy."-Works, Vol. II, pp. 55, 56. And the stigma that is sought still to be put upon Jefferson's memory as "an enemy of Christianity," is, more than anything else, because of his opposition to that religious despotism in that day.
Abraham Lincoln, in his opposition to a national despotism sustained by a Supreme Court decision, was also, as we have seen (p. 162), charged with being among "the enemies of the Constitution," "the enemies of the supremacy of the laws," with aiming "a deadly blow at our whole republican form of government," "which, if successful, would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy, and violence." Of him it was said, "There is no objection to him, except the monstrous revolutionary doctrines with which ho is identified." 56 But, above all, he was charged with being an "Abolitionist." This word in that day, by those who so used it, was expressive of the lowest point in the scale which it was possible to reach. It was very difficult, indeed almost impossible, for such persons to obtain a hearing on any public platform. Senator Douglas once referred to them in a way that shows the popular estimate of them, by speaking of Lincoln's "following the example and lead of all the little Abolition orators who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and churches."-First, Speech in Ottawa Debate, Id., p. 173.
And these ready charges, especially the reproach of "Abolitionist," did in many cases accomplish the purpose for which they were used in that day-they did smother the opposition of men who in their consciences knew that that despotism ought to be opposed, precisely as the like epithets-and especially that of "Seventh-day Adventist"-smother the opposition of many people who to-day in their consciences know that this despotism should be openly opposed. Abraham Lincoln's advice to all such persons in that day is equally applicable to-day and for all time. Here it is:-
"Some men, mostly Whigs, who condemn the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, nevertheless hesitate to go for its restoration lest they be thrown in company with the Abolitionist. Will they allow me, as an old Whig, to tell them, good-humoredly, that I think this is very silly? stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.... To desert such ground because of any company is to be less than a Whig, less than a man, less than an American."-Peoria Speech, October 16, 1854, Id., pp. 28, 29.
So it may be fittingly said to-day, and on this mighty question.
There is no doubt that the Seventh-day Adventists do stand in uncompromising opposition to this approaching religious despotism, in every phase of it. They oppose it upon the principles set down in this book-upon the Jeffersonian, Madisonian, Washingtonian, and Lincolnian principles; upon genuine American, Protestant, and Christian principles. And in so doing they are absolutely in the right. And if it be true, as no doubt it is, that they have upon these principles made their opposition so effective as to deserve to be singled out by the miners and sappers and buglers of this religious despotism as the chiefest of all their opponents, then the more honor to them for it-they are absolutely in the right. And it is true here too, that many men who condemn this encroachment of the religious power upon the civil, nevertheless hesitate openly to oppose it lest they be thrown in company with the Seventh-day Adventists. But let it be now also said to all: "Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong."
So to stand to-day upon this great issue is to defend the natural rights of mankind. It is to conserve the constitutional rights of the American people. It is to maintain pure Protestantism. It is to manifest true Christianity in the world. To desert such ground because of any company is to desert the company and abandon the principlesof Lincoln, Washingtonian, Madison, Jefferson, Martin Luther, and the Lord Jesus Christ. To desert such ground because of any company is to be less than a man, less than an American, less than a Protestant, less than a Christian.