Law of God
National Sunday Law - A. Jones's Corner
Posted: (4th) 1-31 -12 - -
Senator Blair.—You are against all Sunday laws? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 23.3}
Mr. Jones.—Yes, sir; we are against every Sunday law that was ever made in this world, from the first enacted by Constantine to this one now proposed; and we would be equally against a Sabbath law if it were proposed, for that would be antichristian, too. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 23.4}
Senator Blair.—State and national, alike? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 23.5}
Mr. Jones.—State and national, sir. I shall give you historical reasons presently, and the facts upon which these things stand, and I hope they will receive consideration. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 23.6}
George Washington, I believe, is yet held in some respectful consideration—he is by the Seventh-day Adventists at least—and he said, "Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and is to be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience." And so should we be protected, so long as we are law-abiding citizens. There are no saloon keepers among us. We are as a body for prohibition; and as for the principles of Christian temperance, we conscientiously practice them. In short, you will find no people in this country or in the world, more peaceable and law-abiding than we endeavor to be. We teach the people according to the Scripture, to be subject to the powers that be; we teach them that the highest duty of the Christian citizen is strictly to obey the law,—to obey it not from fear of punishment, but out of respect for governmental authority, and out of respect for God, and conscience towards him. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 23.7}
Senator Blair.—That is the common Mormon argument. The Mormons say their institution is a matter of religious belief. Everybody concedes their right to believe in Mormonism, but when they come to the point of practicing it, will it not be to the disturbance of others? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 24.1}
Mr. Jones.—I should have come to that, even though you had not asked the question. But as you have introduced it, I will notice it now. My argument throughout is that the civil government can never have anything to do with men's duties under the first four of the ten commandments; and this is the argument embodied in Washington's words. These duties pertain solely to God. Now polygamy is adultery. But adultery is not a duty that men owe to God, in any way, much less does it come under any of the first four commandments. This comes within the inhibitions of the second table of the law of God—the commandments embracing duty to our neighbor. How men should conduct themselves toward their fellow-men, civil government must decide; that is the very purpose of its existence. Consequently, the practice of polygamy lying wholly within this realm, is properly subject to the jurisdiction of civil government. My argument does not in the least degree countenance the principles of Mormonism, nor can it fairly be made to do so. I know that it is offered as a very ready objection; but those who offer it as an objection and as an argument against the principles upon which we stand, thereby make adultery a religious practice. But against all such objection and argument, I maintain that adultery is not in any sense a religious practice. It is not only highly irreligious, but it is essentially uncivil; and because it is uncivil, the civil power has as much right to blot it out as it has to punish murder, or thieving, or perjury, or any other uncivil thing. Moreover, we deny that honest occupations on any day of the week, or at any time whatever, can ever properly be classed with adultery. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 24.2}
There are also people who believe in community of property in this world. Suppose they base their principles of having all things in common upon the apostolic example. Very good. They have the right to do that. Every one who sells his property and puts it into a common fund, has a right to do that if he chooses; but suppose these men in carrying out that principle, and in claiming that it is a religious ordinance, were to take without consent your property or mine into their community. Then what?—The State forbids it. It does not forbid the exercise of their religion; but it protects your property and mine, and in exercising its prerogative of protection, it forbids theft. And in forbidding theft, the State never asks any questions as to whether thieving is a religious practice. So also as to polygamy, which is practiced among the Mormons. But let us consider this in another view. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 25.1}
It is every man's right in this country, or anywhere else, to worship an idol if he chooses. That idol embodies his conviction of what God is. He can worship only according to his convictions. It matters not what form his idol may have, he has the right to worship it anywhere in all the world, therefore in the United States. But suppose that in the worship of that god he attempts to take the life of one of his fellow-men, and offer it as a human sacrifice. The civil government exists for the protection of life, liberty, property, etc., and it must punish that man for his attempt upon the life of his fellow-man. The civil law protects man's life from such exercise of any one's religion, but in punishing the offender, the State does not consider the question of his religion at all. It would punish him just the same if he made no pretensions to worship or to religion. It punishes him for his incivility, for his attempt at murder, not for his irreligion. I repeat, the question of religion is not considered by the State; the sole question is, Did he threaten the life of his fellow-man? Civil government must protect its citizens. This is strictly within Cesar's jurisdiction; it comes within the line of duties which the Scripture shows to pertain to our neighbor, and with it Cesar has to do. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 25.2}
Therefore it is true that the State can never of right legislate in regard to any man's religious faith, or in relation to anything in the first four commandments of the decalogue. But if in the exercise of his religious convictions under the first four commandments, a man invades the rights of his neighbor, as to life, family, property, or character, then the civil government says that it is unlawful. Why? Because it is irreligious or immoral?—Not at all; but because it is uncivil, and for that reason only. It never can be proper for the State to ask any question as to whether any man is religious or not, or whether his actions are religious or not. The sole question must ever be, Is the action civil or uncivil. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 26.1}
Senator Blair.—Now apply that right to this case -- to the institution of the Sabbath among men for the good of men. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 26.2}
Mr. Jones.—Very good, we will consider that. Here are persons who are keeping Sunday. It is their right to work on every other day of the week. It is their right to work on that day, if they desire; but they are keeping that day, recognizing it as the Sabbath. Now while they are doing that which is their right, here are other people who are keeping Saturday, and others who are keeping Friday. The Mohammedans recognize Friday. But we will confine ourselves to those who keep Saturday, the seventh day, as the Sabbath. Those who keep Sunday, and who want legislation for that day, ask that other people shall be forbidden to work on Sunday, because they say it disturbs their rest, it disturbs their worship, etc.; and they claim that their rights are not properly protected. Do they really believe that in principle? Let us see. They will never admit (at any rate, I have never yet found one of them who would) that their work on Saturday disturbs the rest, or the worship, of the man who rests on Saturday. If their work on Saturday does not disturb the Sabbath rest, or the worship, of the man who keeps Saturday, then upon what principle is it that our work on Sunday disturbs the rest of those who keep Sunday? I have never found one on that side yet who would admit the principle. If their work does not disturb our rest and our worship, our work cannot disturb their rest or their worship. More than this: In a general Sunday convention held in San Francisco, at which I was present, there was a person who spoke on this very question. Said he: "There are some people, and a good many of them in this State, who do not believe in Sunday laws, and who keep Saturday as the Sabbath; but," said he, "the majority must rule. The vast majority of the people do keep Sunday; their rights must be respected, and they have a right to enact it into law." I arose and said, "Suppose the Seventh-day people were in the majority, and they should go to the legislature and ask for a law to compel you to keep Saturday out of respect to their rights. Would you consider it right?" There was a murmur all over the house, "No." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 26.3}
Senator Blair.—Upon what ground did they say, No? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 28.1}
Mr. Jones.—That is what I should like to know. They were not logical. Their answer shows that there is no ground in justice nor in right for their claim that the majority should rule in matters of conscience. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 28.2}
Senator Blair.—That does not follow. At least it does not strike me that it follows. The majority has a right to rule in what pertains to the regulation of society, and if Cesar regulates society, then the majority has a right in this country to say what we shall render to Cesar. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 28.3}
Mr. Jones.—Very good, but the majority has no right to say what we shall render to God; nor has it any right to say that we shall render to Cesar that which is God's. If nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every one thousand people in the United States kept the seventh day, that is, Saturday, and I deemed it my right, and made it my choice, to keep Sunday, they would have not right to compel me to rest on Saturday. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 28.4}
Senator Blair.—In other words, you take the ground that for the good of society, irrespective of the religious aspect of the question, society may not require abstinence from labor on Sabbath, if it disturbs others? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 28.5}
Mr. Jones.—As to its disturbing others, I have proved that it does not. They body of your question states my position exactly. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 28.6}
Senator Blair.—You are logical all the way through that there shall be no Sabbath. This question was passed me to ask: "Is the speaker also opposed to all laws against blasphemy?" {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 28.7}
Mr. Jones.—Yes, sir. But not because blasphemy is not wrong, but because civil government cannot define blasphemy, nor punish it. Blasphemy pertains to God, it is an offense against him, it is a sin against him. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 29.1}
Senator Blair.—Suppose the practice of it in society at large is hurtful to society? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 29.2}
Mr. Jones.—That will have to be explained. How is it hurtful to society? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 29.3}
Senator Blair.—Suppose it be hurtful to society in this way: A belief in the existence of God, and reverence for the Creator, and a cultivation of that sentiment in society, is for the good of society; is, in fact, the basis of all law and restraint. If the Almighty, who knows everything, or is supposed to, and has all power, has no right to restrain us, it is difficult to see how we can restrain each other. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 29.4}
Mr. Jones.—He has the right to restrain us. He does restrain us. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 29.5}
Senator Blair.—To commonly blaspheme and deride and ridicule the Almighty, would, of course, have a tendency to bring up the children who are soon to be the State, in an absolute disregard of him and his authority. Blasphemy, as I understand it, is that practice which brings the Creator into contempt and ridicule among his creatures. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 29.6}
Mr. Jones.—What is blasphemy here, would not be blasphemy in China, and many other countries. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 29.7}
Senator Blair.—We are not dealing with pagan communities. A regulation that may be appropriate in a pagan community, would not answer men in a Christian community. Do you mean that there is no such thing as blasphemy? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 29.8}
Mr. Jones.—No; I do not mean that. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 29.9}
Senator Blair.—The Chinaman hardly believes in any god whatever; at least in no such God as we do. Taking our God and these Christian institutions of ours, what do you understand blasphemy to be? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 29.10}
Mr. Jones. —There are many things that the Scriptures show to be blasphemy. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 30.1}
Senator Blair.—The power of the law has undertaken in various States to say that certain things are blasphemy. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 30.2}
Mr. Jones.—Precisely; but if the law proposes to define blasphemy and punish it, why does it not go to the depth of it, and define all and punish all? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 30.3}
Senator Blair.—Perhaps it may not go as far as it ought. You say you are opposed to all laws against blasphemy, cursing, and swearing? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 30.4}
Mr. Jones.—In relation to any one of the first four commandments. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 30.5}
Senator Palmer.—Suppose that what is defined as blasphemy in the statutes of the several States, should detract from the observance of the law and regard for it, would you regard laws against it as being improper? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 30.6}
Mr. Jones.—Under the principle that the Scripture lays down, no legislation in any way can be proper in regard to the first four commandments. There may be many ways in which it would appear very appropriate for civil government to do this or to do that; but when you have entered upon such legislation, where will you stop? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 30.7}
Senator Palmer.—Abstaining from blasphemy is a part of the education of the youth of the country. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 30.8}
Mr. Jones.—That is true. If youth are properly educated, they will never blaspheme. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 30.9}
Senator Palmer.—We pass laws for the education of the youth. The question is whether abstention from blasphemy could not be included in the scope of education. Take it on that ground. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 30.10}
Mr. Jones.—Idolatry (and covetousness is idolatry) is no more than a violation of the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me;" and if the State can forbid the violation of the third commandment and the fourth, why may it not forbid the violation of the first and the second, and in that case supplant God at once, and establish an earthly theocracy? That is the only logical outcome. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 31.1}
Senator Blair.—Covetousness is a state of mind; but when it becomes practice by stealing—taking from another without consideration—the law interferes. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 31.2}
Mr. Jones—Certainly. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 31.3}
Senator Palmer.—There is an infection in blasphemy or in covetousness. For instance, if one covetous man in a neighborhood should infuse the whole neighborhood with covetousness to such an extent that all would become thieves, then covetousness would be a proper subject of legislation. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 31.4}
Mr. Jones.—Never! You forbid the theft, not the covetousness. You cannot invade the condition of mind in which lies the covetousness. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 31.5}
Senator Blair.—We do not say that we must invade the condition of mind; but society has a right to make regulations, because those regulations are essential to the good of society. Society by a major vote establishes a regulations, and we have to obey what is settled by the majority. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 31.6}
Mr. Jones.—How shall it be discovered what is blasphemy, as it is only an offense against God? In the Puritan Theocracy of New England, our historian, Bancroft, says that "the highest offense in the catalogue of crimes was blasphemy, or what a jury should call blasphemy." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 31.7}
Senator Blair.—But the law was behind the jury, and said that the practice should be punished. If a jury of twelve men said that one had committed the overt act, then it could be punished. It was the majority who made the law, and the jury only found the question of fact after the law had been violated. The jury did not make the law. This is a question as to making the law. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 31.8}
Mr. Jones.—It is not wholly a question only of making the law. The question is whether the law is right when it is made. There is a limit to the lawmaking power; and that limit is the line which Jesus Christ has drawn. The government has no right to make any law relating to the things that pertain to God, or offenses against God, or religion. It has nothing to do with religion. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 32.1}
Blasphemy, according to Judge Cooley, in his "Constitutional Limitations," "is purposely using words concerning the Supreme Being, calculated and designed to impair and destroy the reverence, respect, and confidence due to him, as the intelligent Creator, Governor, and Judge of the world; . . . a bad motive must exist; there must be a willful, malicious attempt to lessen men's reverence for the Deity, or for the accepted religion." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 32.2}
It is seen at a glance that this comes from the old English system of statutes regulating "offenses against God and religion." That is where this statute is placed in every system of civil law; it could not be placed anywhere else. But offenses against God are to be answered for only at his tribunal; and with religion, or offenses against it, the civil power has nothing to do. It is a perversion of the functions of civil government to have it made a party to religious controversies. It will have ample exercise for its power and jurisdiction to keep religious disputants as well as other people civil, without allowing itself ever to become a partisan in religious disputes and the conservator of religious dogmas. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 32.3}
But according to Judge Cooley's definition, blasphemy is an attempt to lessen men's reverence, not only for the Deity, but for "the accepted religion" as well. But any man in this wide world has the right to lessen men's reverence for the accepted religion, if he thinks that religion to be wrong. Consequently, as I said a moment ago, that which would be counted blasphemy here would not be counted blasphemy in China; and that which is in the strictest accordance with the word of God and the faith of Jesus Christ here, is necessarily blasphemy in China, or in Turkey, or in Russia. A man who preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ in China commits blasphemy under this definition. He does make a willful attempt to lesson men's reverence for their accepted religion, and for the deities recognized in their religion. He had to do so, if he is ever to get them to believe in Christ and the religion of Christ. He has to bring them to the place where they will have no reverence for their deities or for their accepted religion, before they ever can accept the religion of Jesus Christ. It is the same way in Turkey, or any other Mohammedan country, or any heathen country. Wherever the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached in any Mohammedan or heathen country, it is blasphemy under this definition, because its sole object is not only to lesson men's reverence for their deities and for their accepted religion, but to turn them wholly from it, and if possible to obliterate it from their minds. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 33.1}
It is so likewise in Russia. Anybody there who speaks against the accepted religion, or against the saints, or their images, is subject to the penalty of blasphemy, which is banishment for life to Siberia. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 33.2}
But if blasphemy be a proper subject of legislation by civil government, if it be right for a government to make itself the "defender of the faith," then it is perfectly proper for the laws of China to prohibit under whatever penalty it pleases, the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ within the Chinese dominions; because its effect is to lesson men's reverence for the deities recognized by China, and for the accepted religion of the county. It is the same way in any of the other countries named. And in that case there is no such thing as persecution on account of religion. The only persecutions that have ever been, were because of men's speaking against the accepted religion. If this principle be correct, then the Roman empire did perfectly right in prohibiting under penalty of death the preaching of the religion of Jesus Christ. Whenever Paul, or any of his brethren, spoke in the Roman empire, they blasphemed according to the Roman law. They were held as blasphemers, and were put to death under the very principle of this definition, which is the principle of the American statutes on the subject of blasphemy. The Christians had to tell the Roman empire that the Roman gods were no gods. They had to tell the Roman empire that the genius of Rome itself, which the Roman system held to be the supreme deity, was not such; but that it was subordinate, and that there was a higher idea of God and of right than the Roman empire or the Roman law knew anything of. They did speak deliberately against the chief deity of Rome, and all the gods of Rome. They did it with the express purpose of destroying reverence for them and for the accepted religion. Rome put them to death. And I repeat, if the principle of the American statutes against blasphemy is correct, then Rome did right. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 34.1}
To make this clearer, I quote a passage from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in defense of this principle, in a decision upon this very subject, which says: "To prohibit the open, public, and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country, is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government." That is precisely what the Roman empire did. Christianity did openly, publicly, and explicitly deny the popular religion of the country. It did it with intent to destroy men's reverence for the deities and the religion of that country. Rome prohibited it; and upon the principle of the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which is the principle of American law on blasphemy, Rome did right, and Christianity was a blaspheming religion. The principle of this decision seems to be that those who represent the popular religion of a country have so little of the real virtue of the religion which they profess, that if anybody speaks against it, it is sure to rouse their combativeness to such a degree as to endanger the public tranquillity. Therefore, in order to keep civil those who represent the popular religion, the State must forbid anybody to deny that religion. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 35.1}
This decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is one of the grand precedents that have been followed in all the later decisions upon this subject in the younger States; but this decision itself followed one by Chief Justice Kent of the Supreme Court of New York in 1811, in which the embodies the same principles. He defends the right of the State to punish such offenses against what he calls a Christian people, and not equally to punish like offenses against the religion of other people in this country, by the following argument:— {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 35.2}
"Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mohammed, or of the Grand Llama, and for this plain reason: that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 36.1}
This is only to argue that if the morality of the country were engrafted upon the religion of Mohammed or the Grand Llama, and Christians were to speak against and deny that accepted religion, it would be proper that the State should punish those Christians for so doing. If that principle be correct, then a Mohammedan country has the right to prohibit the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ within its limits. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 36.2}
According to these decisions, Luther and the reformers of his day were blasphemers. The penalty was death, in many cases at the stake, yet under this principle the State did right to put them to death in whatever way the law prescribed; because they did certainly make an open, public, and explicit denial of the popular religion of every country in which they lived, and of all Europe; and if the words of Luther were used today in any Catholic country, they would be counted as blasphemous, as a willful and malicious reviling of the accepted religion. The reformers did hold up to ridicule and contempt the popular religion of all Europe. They did right, too; and when the State punished them, it was but carrying out the principles upheld by Chancellor Kent and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and all the other States that have legislated on the subject of religion. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 36.3}
As I have already stated, it was upon this principle precisely that the Roman empire forbade the preaching of the gospel the Christ. It only forbade an open, public, and explicit denial of the popular religion of the country, yet in forbidding that, it forbade the preaching of the gospel of Christ. But Christ sent forth his disciples to preach the gospel to every creature, and they did it in the face of the Roman law, and in opposition to the whole power of the Roman empire; and everybody in all the world has an undeniable right to make an open, public, and explicit denial of the popular religion of this country, or any other, if he thinks that religion to be wrong. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 36.4}
The principle of these decisions and of the civil statutes against blasphemy, is essentially a pagan principle, and not a Christian principle. It is peculiarly appropriate, therefore, that Chief Justice Kent not only cited the precedents of the church-and-state principles of the colonies and of the British government, but appealed to the pagan governments of antiquity and the papal institutions of modern Europe, as the basis of his decision. It is true that all these nations have set themselves up as the special guardians of their deities, and have prohibited the denial of the popular religion; and it is equally true that all these nations have resisted every step in enlightenment and progress that has ever been made in the march of time. Every step forward in religion and in enlightenment has of necessity been taken in the face of all the opposition which these States and empires could bring to bear. But the principles of American institutions are neither pagan nor papal. The principles of the American Constitution which forbids legislation on the subject of religion, are Christian principles. And it is strictly in order for Supreme Courts in making decisions in behalf of what they boast of as the Christian religion, to base their decision upon something else than the course of the pagan governments of antiquity, and the papal institutions of modern Europe. Upon such a subject it would seem to be proper for them to refer to the teachings and the principles of the Author of Christianity, but singularly enough, it has never been done, and doubtless for the very good reason that it never can be done; for the teachings of Jesus Christ are directly against it. His word forbids civil government to have anything to do with what pertains to God. And instead of teaching his disciples to prosecute, to fine, and to punish by civil law those who speak against them or their religion, he says, "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." How can men be brought to respect God or Jesus Christ by civil penalties upon their bodies and goods? How can they respect the religion of men who are ready to prosecute and imprison them? Every principle of the thing is contrary both to the spirit and the letter of Christianity. The religion of Jesus Christ properly exemplified in the daily lives of those who profess it, is the best argument and the strongest defense against blasphemy, both as defined by the Scriptures and by the civil statutes. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 37.1}
Laws, therefore, prohibiting "what a jury may call blasphemy," are pagan, and not Christian. The decisions of the Supreme Courts of New York and Pennsylvania upon this subject are pagan decisions, and not Christian; they are based upon pagan precedents, not Christian. The deadly persecutions of all history, pagan, papal, and so-called Protestant, are justified in these decisions. Michael Servetus was burnt for "blasphemy." The only use that ever has been, or ever is, made of any such laws in any country, is to give some religious bigots who profess the popular religion, an opportunity to vent their wrath upon persons who disagree with them. Any man who really possesses the religion of Christ will have enough of the grace of God to keep him from endangering the public tranquillity when his religion is spoken against. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 38.1}
Therefore, I say that we are opposed to all laws of civil government against blasphemy, not because blasphemy is not wrong, but because it is a wrong of that kind with which civil government has nothing to do; and in this we stand wholly upon Christian principle. We stand exactly where the early Christians stood; for, I say again, when Paul spoke in the Roman empire, he was blaspheming, according to the law, was held as a blasphemer and an atheist, and was put to death as such, under the very principle upon which the American laws of blasphemy are sustained. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 39.1}
Senator Blair.—The law was wrong, you say? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 39.2}
Mr. Jones.—Certainly the law was wrong. The Roman law was that no man should have particular gods of his own,—gods not recognized by the Roman law. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 39.3}
Senator Blair.—That law was not for the good of society? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 39.4}
Mr. Jones.—No, sir. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 39.5}
Senator Blair.—Certainly it was not. Then you have to repeal the law or obey it. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 39.6}
Mr. Jones.—It ought to be repealed. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 39.7}
Senator Blair.—During these eighteen hundred years we have contrived to repeal that law; but here comes an intelligent people who have evolved among themselves, as the result of a thousand or fifteen hundred years of history, among other things, the institution of the Christian Sabbath, by writing it in the laws of every State in this country, so that the whole American people made up of communities or States, have enacted the principle of this law. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 39.8}
Mr. Jones.—The same principle is under the bill before the Committee. There is the same principle under it all. If you can legislate in regard to the Sabbath, you can legislate in regard to blasphemy; you can legislate in regard to idolatry, and every other offense against God, as did both the Puritan and the papal theocracy. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 40.1}
Senator Blair.—You deny the right of the majority, in other words, to make a law in conformity with which the whole shall practice in society? {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 40.2}
Mr. Jones.—I deny the right of any civil government to make any law respecting anything that pertains to man's relationship to his God, under the first four of the ten commandments. I wish right here to show further that this is not only the principle of the word of Jesus Christ, but also of the American Constitution. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 40.3}
Before Christianity was preached in the world, the Roman empire had among its laws these statutes:— {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 40.4}
"1. No man shall have for himself particular gods of his own; no man shall worship by himself any new or foreign gods, unless they are recognized by the public laws. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 40.5}
"2. Worship the gods in all respects according to the laws of your country, and compel all others to do the same. But hate and punish those who would introduce anything whatever alien to our customs in this particular. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 40.6}
"3. Whoever introduces new religions, the tendency and character of which are unknown, whereby the minds of men may be disturbed, shall, if belonging to the higher rank, be banished; if to the lower, punished with death." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 40.7}
The Christians did have a particular God of their own, not recognized by the Roman law. They did introduce a new religion. The Roman empire enforced the law, and that is why the Christians were put to death. If things pertaining to God be a proper subject of legislation by civil government, then no Christian was ever persecuted, and there has never been persecution in this world. All the Roman empire did in killing Christians was to enforce the law. Then the question was with the Christians, at that time, and the question is with us, Is not the law wrong? and did not the Christians have the right to attack the law? That is what they did. When a Christian was brought before the magistrate, a dialogue followed something like this:— {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.1}
Magistrate.—"Have you a particular God of your own,—a god not recognized by the Roman law?" {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.2}
Christian.—"Yes." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.3}
M.—"Did you not know that the law is against it?" {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.4}
C.—"Yes." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.5}
M.—"Have you not introduced a new religion?" {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.6}
C.—"Yes." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.7}
M.—"Did you not know that the law is against it?" {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.8}
C.—"Yes." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.9}
M.–"Did you not know that the penalty is death, for those of the lower ranks?" {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.10}
C.—"Yes." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.11}
M.—"You are of the lower ranks?" {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.12}
C. —"Yes." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.13}
M.—"You have introduced a new religion?" {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.14}
C.—"Yes." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.15}
M.—"You have a God of your own?" {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.16}
C.—"Yes." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.17}
M.—"What is the penalty?" {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.18}
C.—"Death." {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.19}
That was all. The Romans enforced the law upon the Christians in the first days of Christianity; and there was no persecution in it, if the principle be recognized that civil government has a right to legislate in religious things. The empire had this apparent advantage, too, that the law existed before Christianity was known in the world. Christianity appeared to Rome as nothing else than an uprising against the imperial power. Laws are made to be enforced; and to enforce the law is all that the Roman empire ever did, whether up to the time of Constantine, or at any other time. In fact, all the papacy did in the Middle Ages was to have the emperors enforce the law. We stand today just where the Christians did at that time; we come to the root of the whole matter, and deny the right of the civil government to legislate on anything that pertains to our duties to God under the first four commandments, and assert the Christian and American principle that every man has the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. {1892 ATJ, NSLRLL 41.20}
Notes & References
[40] `I read Rev. 13:15-17, and found nothing about a Sunday law in there.' So, what are you talking about?
It becomes clear scriptures like this require a bit more explaining since there are symbols and expressions used, unfamiliar to many today. To get to it quicker we start with the third law which is fully matured. We found the third law tucked away in the words, "And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." Rev. 13:15, KJV. Other Bibles say, "It was then permitted to breath life into the beast's image, so that the beast's image could speak and [could] have anyone who did not worship it put to death." Rev. 13:15, NAB. - - What is a beast? A beast is a powerful animal. In the Bible nations are meant by it. Thus the Babylonian Empire was a lion, the Medo-Persians were a bear, Greece a leopard, and the Roman Empire a terrible, nondescript beast for the reason of its increased violence which it displayed throughout its existence in actual history. Now, history shows that the Roman Empire had three successive phases or stages: (1) The Imperial (pagan) Stage, (2) The Ecclesiastical (papal) Stage, (3) The `little horn' (parallel to the 2 horned lamb) stage. The `imperial stage' was that of the emperors - from Emperor Augustus, 30 B.C. to Emperor Romulus Augustulus who was in power from 475- 476 A.D. During these ca. 500 years, Rome had some 80 Emperors, sometimes more than one at the same time. It could get quite chaotic and dangerous for many were self-willed, unruly personalities. The Ecclesiastical Stage began after Romulus Augustulus the empirical system of government collapsed by 476 A.D. because of the ineptitude of the kings, for they could not govern or control themselves. Now the bishop of Rome, for lack of anyone else, became the head of state and became known as Pope. While these men were supposed to be guided by religion, they too exhibited similar trades the emperors had displayed. The world learned from this that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The `little horn' stage means - since horns grow out of the head of an animal, and in the Bible nations are spoken of as animal kingdoms, such a horn growing out of a kingdom, will be the leadership, the top man - actually a succession of men just like the Kaisers, or Emperors had some 80 of them over 500 years. By the year 538 A.D. the papacy had reached absolute power like the emperors used to have - it practiced and prospered, Dan. 8:12. The popes name at the time was Silverius. After him came some 251 popes between 538 to 2011 = 1473 years. - - What is the image of the beast? An image is a copy of something. In Rev. 13:15, the image can both, `speak' and `cause'. That means it can declare its opinions through laws, which are then enforced upon its citizenry. - - Now, is this beast talking about the imperial phase rather than the ecclesiastical phase or stage? How can we know for sure which one? The Bible says that the power would do three evil things: (1) It would rule for 1260 years crushing out many men's life.
(2) The `little horn' would reach its great power after three of the ten powers which divided up the Roman Empire, were uprooted - which was completed in 538 A.D. Thus, this horn power came after all the emperors of Rome - it would have leaders at its head and a mouth speaking great things - things that effect the lives of all under its rulership, Daniel 7:8. Since it opens its mouth in blasphemy, that means it would speak against our God in heaven and make himself god - it is therefore (primarily) a religious (ecclesiastical) power. These details go beyond what the Roman Emperors did during their days. They persecuted, but they did not rule anymore after the three red nations of the ten divisions of Rome (Vandals, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Suevi, Visigoths, Burgundians, Lombards, Franks, Allemani, Saxons, ) were overcome. Therefore, real history gives us the correct interpretation who the beast is and the `little horn', which grew very big. Thus we know that the disciple/prophet John, who wrote Revelation, was given by God in Heaven, guidelines for the whole history from what Daniel prophesied in his days, to John's days, and on, till the very end of the world, close to which we have come in our days. We talk now about the `image of the beast.'
But since it is an `image' that does this, not the beast itself, what is it talking about? Well the `image' is also called the `daughters' (offspring) of the beast (Rev. 17, see chart of comparison).
, which is preceded and followed by the only sounded letter aleph 
, making the Aramaic word "abba". It means, `our kind heavenly father.' That is how important the Sabbath ought to be to all who claim to be Christians, and yet this holy day of God was given the most demeaning names to cast it aside as a divinely ordained day throughout history in violation of 
Bible Topics