years. The Council of Laodicea, held in 364 A. D., in its twenty-ninth canon, sought further to honor Sunday by an attempt to abolish the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, among Christian believers, forbidding them to "be idle" except on Sundays.

unday. Chief Justice Clark, of the Supreme ourt of North Carolina, in his judicial review Sunday legislation, says:

"As late as the year 409 A. D. two rescripts the emperors Honorius and Theodosius indite that Christians then still generally obrved the Sabbath (Saturday, not Sunday). e curious may find these set out in full, Codex Justin.,' lib. 1, tit. 9, CX. 13. Not till ar the end of the ninth century was Sunday bstituted by law for Saturday as the day rest by a decree of the Emperor Leo (Leo ons., 54)."- North Carolina Reports, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 508-515.

Thus we see that Sunday laws and Sunday servance progressed together. Civil transacons and amusements were not strictly fordden until the court and the circus became a val of the church for public patronage on ndays. At a church convention held at Carage in 401, the bishops passed a resolution to and up a petition to the emperor, praying that the public shows might be transferred rom the Christian Sunday and from feast days some other days of the week."

The reason given in support of the petition

38:

"The people congregate more to the circus an to the church, and it is not fitting that hristians should gather at the spectacles, since e exercises there are contrary to the precepts f God; and if they were not open, the Chrisans would attend more to things divine."eander's "History of the Christian Church" edition 1852), Vol. II, p. 300.

The bishops wanted a "civil" law to favor urch attendance. The desired law was finally cured, upon which Neander thus remarks: "In the year 425, the exhibition of spectacles a Sunday, and upon the principal feast days the Christians, was forbidden, in order that ne devotion of the faithful might be free from disturbance. In this way, the church reeived help from the state for the furtherance f her ends, which could not be obtained in the receding period. But had it not been for that onfusion of spiritual and secular interests, ad it not been for the vast number of mere utward conversions thus brought about, she would have needed no such help."— Id., p. 301. Compulsory Sunday legislation established a recedent for other religious measures at the ands of the civil magistrate. While the lawmakers did not compel people at first to attend burch, but to close on Sunday every place xcept the churches, yet having taken the first tep in the wrong direction, they soon carried compulsory religion to its logical conclusion, by compelling all people "to be in attendance at divine services on Sunday" under the most Exacting penalties. A little later, Justinian ssued a "civil" proclamation, giving all men in the Roman Empire three months to embrace Christianity, or lose all office, property, or

a

Charlemagne, in the year 800, made "civil" Sunday law, compelling all people, whether religious or nonreligious, to attend church on Sunday. His law read as follows:

"We do ordain, as it is required in the law of God, that no man shall do any servile work on the Lord's day: . . . but that they all come to church [literally, come to mass] to magnify the Lord their God."- Quoted in "The Sabbath for Man," Wilbur F. Crafts, p. 556.

The Puritans of New England and the Established Church in Virginia used to fine any one who did not "attend divine service on Sunday" ten shillings for each violation of the compulsory church attendance law.

This is a brief sketch of Sunday laws and their natural development and logical outcome. The primary object of all Sunday legislation is to compel people to act religiously, to attend church, and to support places of religious worship. This is the real design of religious laws, no matter what pretext may be urged at first by those who clamor for this kind of legislation.

Every one acquainted with the history of the past knows that the Christian church and the state were first united under Constantine. The first step in that direction was the enactment of a Sunday law, not directly, it is true, but in effect. It established a precedent for religious legislation. All religious legislation that followed fell back upon Constantine's Sunday law precedent for legal authority. Similarly the early ecclesiastical legislation in favor of Sunday is now appealed to in support of the power of the church. If any one questioned the authority of the church to ordain new feast days and holy days, and to compel all sects to observe such feasts under penalty, the ready answer

was:

"Had the church not such power, she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority. The church has power to command feasts and holy days by the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church."Abridgment of Christian Doctrine."

spiritual despotism and intolerance which led to the establishment of the tribunals of the Inquisition.

Like causes always produce like effects. The enactment of a Sunday law in the fourth century paved the way for an entire union of church and state, which resulted in all the horrors and persecutions of the Dark Ages. Unless similar tendencies in the United States

are checked, we will repeat the history of the past. The same seed 'will produce the same fruitage. Every lover of civil and religious liberty should raise his voice and pen in protestation against all religious measures in our legislative halls. The first step in the wrong direction is dangerous, as it may precipitate the last over the precipice at the end of the trail.

S. MARTIN, general superintendent of the National Re

form Association, had an article in the January number of the Christian Statesman restating the aims of the association and telling something of its work.

Among other things, Mr. Martin declares that the association of which he is superintendent

"stands unswervingly for... the proper observance of the Lord's day; the use of the Bible and training in Christian morality in our public schools; all our Christian usages, customs, laws, and institutions, including Christian acknowledgments in State constitutions, decisions of the courts of our country to the effect that Christianity is part of the common law of the land and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United

States in 1892, 'This is a
Christian nation.'

"Aims thoroughly to Christianize the nation and have it, as a nation, accept Christ as its King, and so change its fundamental law as to at once fittingly express its Christian character and legally safeguard our national Christianity."

Let us examine this a little and see just what is involved in this National Reform program.

It is true that in deciding the point at issue, namely, the scope and meaning of

the United States contract labor law, Justice Brewer used the expression, " This is a Christian nation," but there is nothing to indicate that the learned justice meant more than this, namely, that in a general sense, as contrasted with Jewish, Mohammedan, or pagan peoples, this is a Christian nation, or in other words, a nation of Christians, and that, therefore, the court must assume that Congress had no purpose to enact any legislation hostile to Christianity.

The intent of "the lawmaker is the law." Therefore, in construing a statute it is frequently the case that a court inquires into not only its wording, but the circumstances under

which it was enacted, the agitation that led up to its adoption, and the history of those by and for whom it was made. In the Trinity Church case, referred to by Mr. Martin, it was seriously insisted that the bringing of a minister from London to New York under contract to serve as pastor of Trinity Church, was a violation of the contract labor law. The court of last resort decided that it was not a violation of the law, and in handing down the decision Justice Brewer not unreasonably urged that the history and traditions of the American people were against the view that the Congress had any intention to enact any law in any degree hostile to Christianity, or that would in any way interfere with the free action of a church in securing a pastor where and how they would. It is true that Justice Brewer might have arrived at the same conclusion by way of the words of the First Amendment" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro

We are not in doubt as to what Mr. Martin means by "the proper observance of the Lord's day," his name for Sunday. He does not contemplate a better private observance of the day, but more drastic laws compelling its public observance and a more rigid enforcement of the statutes already in existence; so his "proper observance of the Lord's Day" is to be secured by a more vigorous use of the policeman's club.

"The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States" to which Mr. Martin refers, was not technically decision at all, but dictum.

hibiting the free exercise thereof." But he chose the longer, and more involved, course; and from that day to this, National Reformers have not failed to make the most of his words, dubbing the expression, "This is a Christian nation," a "decision," and exploiting it in every way possible, to the detriment of that perfect freedom of religious faith and profession guaranteed by our National Constitution to every person within the territory of the United States, so far at least as Congressional action is concerned.

This evil work of National Reform has been carried on for more than half a century, and the end is not yet; for it must be admitted that the movement is gaining ground, largely, it is true, through the carelessness and overconfidence of the great mass of the people, but gaining nevertheless. It is time that Americans should realize more fully than many of the present generation seem to do, that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

National "Reform " means and can mean nothing less than the establishment of Christianity as the legal religion of the United States; and that means in turn that our courts shall decide all manner of religious questions, and that according to the National Reform interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. The whole program is evil and only evil continually.

The Causes of Bolshevism and the Remedy

(Continued from page 28)

The spirit of democracy in a democracy must enter into the military management of our Government as well as into the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. The democratic principle must be substituted in place of the autocratic. Rank and position in a military democracy must not destroy the principle of essential justice and the civil right of equality of the citizen before the law.

Likewise, the American capitalist must heed the voice of conscience, and not oppress the laborer who makes possible the amassing of his fortune. Unless tyranny and injustice are eliminated from our dealings with our fellow men in our military, financial, and social relations, we can expect no other fruitage in America than the rapid spread of the baneful doctrines of radical Socialism of the Bolshevist type.

We must not bring our splendid form of government into ill repute by mismanagement and misapplication of its democratic principles. Let liberty, justice, and equality of right control every function of the state in times of war as well as in times of peace, and we shall have found an effective remedy for the dreaded diseases racial Socialism and Bolshevism - in

short of all "isms" of all sorts that strike down the rights of the individual in the supposed interests of society or of the nation.

While Bolshevism attempts to correct one form of national injustice, it swings the pendulum of sovereignty to the other extreme, which is more destructive of the principles of essential justice than the system it endeavors to overthrow. No form of government can long endure that attempts to lift itself up by pulling down the pillars of the temple of justice. Let us correct the abuses in the best form of government, that a worse form may not be thrust upon us.

True Liberty Well Defined

THERE is and can be no conflict between legitimate civil government and legitimate civil liberty.

This is not to say, however, that any man has an absolute right to do as he pleases, without reference to the equal rights of others.

The game in the forests, the fish in the streams, the grass in the parks, etc., are common property, and the rights of the individual are not invaded when he is forbidden to kill the game out of season, to catch the fish in a wasteful manner, or to walk upon the grass in the park. In all these things he is simply required to have proper regard for the equal rights of his fellows.

We might go much farther than this, and say that coal and mineral deposits, water power, public water supplies, public utilities, etc., belong, not to private individuals, nor yet to corporations, but to the whole people, and that they ought to be administered for the benefit of the people.

Call this Socialism if you will. There are some good things in Socialism. There is, however, Socialism and Socialism. The Socialism that seeks to make every man merely a cog in a great wheel, that would substitute communities for families and hand out education, religion, and about everything else ready-made, would be the worst kind of despotism. True liberty demands that the individual be left as free as possible, his liberty of thought, expression, and action being limited only by the equal rights of his fellow man.— Washington Post, May 10, 1918.

Picture

Shows on Sunday

By C. S. Longacre

T

HE Pastors' Federation of Washington, D. C., took a census on a recent Sunday and discovered that only 7,000 people were in attendance at the Sunday services in fifty Protestant churches, while 50,000 were in attendance at thirty-eight theaters and moving picture shows on the same Sunday. The churches were slimly attended, while the places of amusement were filled to overflowing. This revelation created a feeling akin to jealousy, and the Pastors' Federation and the Lord's Day Alliance promptly called a mass meeting for the purpose of urging the passage of a general Sunday observance law by Congress for the District of Columbia. At this mass meeting a number of leading clergymen and the national secretary of the Lord's Day Alliance made fiery speeches, and raised more than one thousand dollars to launch a campaign to prohibit all Sunday labor and business, especially the operation of all places of amusment - in fact, to outlaw all "Sunday amusement for amusement's sake."

A drastic Sunday bill has been prepared the enactment of which would virtually create a situation in Washington such as would compel all people to go to church on Sunday if they went anywhere. The secretary of the Lord's Day Alliance urged that each denomination, not only in Washington but throughout the whole country, get behind members in Congress, and have them pass a Sunday observance law, and thereby practically close all public places on Sunday, except churches and other places of worship.

A Washington Theater

The District of Columbia has never had a Sunday law. Not less than one hundred fifty Sunday observance bills have been introduced into Congress during the past three decades, but thus far Congress has refused to meddle with religious questions. Our Federal Govern ment has adhered to the strict letter as well as the spirit of the First Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress cannot pass a Sunday law without overriding this Amend

ment.

The following editorial in the Washington Herald of February 11, dealing with this Sunday-law movement on the part of the Pastors' Federation, is right to the point:

"It is unfortunate that some of the churches of the city again have raised a cry against