Senator Peffer said flatly: "To-day we are engaged in a theological discussion concerning the observance of the first day of the week." So entirely was the discussion theological, that the chaplain of the Senate, in reporting it to the New York Independent, July 28, 1892, said: "During this debate you might have imagined yourself in a general council or assembly or synod or conference, so pronounced was one senator after another." That it was done distinctly and positively at the demand and under the threats of the churches, is equally clear. Senator Hiscock, who was second only to Senator Hawley in his advocacy of the measure, said: "If I had charge of this amendment in the interest of the Columbian Exposition, I would write the provision for the closure in any form that the religious sentiment of the country demands, and not stand here hesitating and quibbling about it. Rather than let the public sentiment against the Exposition being opened on Sunday, be re-enforced by the opposition in the other House against any legislation of this kind in the interest of the Exposition, I say to the junior senator from Illinois [Mr. Palmer], he had better yield to this sentiment, and not let it go out to the country that there is the slightest doubt that if this money is appropriated, the Exposition will be closed on Sunday. . . . If I were interested in this measure as I might be interested if it were located in my own State, I should make the closure provision satisfactory to those petitioners who have memorialized us against the desecration of the Lord's day." By taking the 13,000,000 people who, according to the census of 1890, are church members in the United States, and then adding to these, "attendants, associates, and sympathizers" "who have a profound respect for " the church, "whether they believe in it or not," Senator Hawley succeeded in creating from forty-five to fifty millions of the people of this country who have more or less of religious profession or sympathy." Then upon this he made the following argument: "There is no use in endeavoring to escape responsibility. If the Senate to-day decides that it will not close that Exhibition on Sunday, the Exhibition will be opened on that day, and you will have offended more than 40,000,000 of people-seriously and solemnly offended them. No wise statesman or monarch of modern times, no satrap of Rome, would have thought it wise to fly in the face of a profound conviction of the people he governed, no matter if he thought it a profound error. It is not wise statesmanship to do it. "Now if gentlemen repudiate this, if they desire to reject it, if they deny that this is in the true sense of the word a religious nation, I should like to see the disclaimer put in white and black and proposed by the Congress of the United States. Write it. How would you write it? . . . Word it, if you dare; advocate it, if you dare. How many who voted for it would ever come back here again? None I hope. You endanger yourselves by opposing it." Upon these and other evidences which he had obtained, "Rev.” H. H. George, a National Reformer from away back, and who had spent the whole session at Washington as an avowed "Christian lobbyist," declared in a speech in Patter son, N. J., Aug. 7, 1892: — "I have learned that . in our hands." we hold the United States Senate And in reply to the proposition that the Sunday Closing Act might be repealed at the next session, he declared: And another one of the same kind of preachers, in a sermon in Pittsburg, July 17, 1892, said: "That the church has weight with great political or governing bodies, has been demonstrated most effectually in the late World's Fair matter, when the United States Senate, the highest body in the country, listened to the voice of religion and passed the World's Fair $5,000,000 appropriation bill with the churchinstituted proviso that the gates of the great Exposition should be opened upon Sunday. That grand good fact suggests to the Christian's mind that if this may be done, so may other equally needful measures. The church is gaining power continually, and its voice will be heard in the future much oftener than in the past." These facts and evidences plainly show that in this legislation the government of the United States has been handed over bodily to the churches; that the churches know it, and that henceforth the government is to be used by the combined churches as a tool by which they will execute upon all, their arbitrary will. These evidences also demonstrate that a number of points made in my argument before the Senate Committee in 1888 have now been met to the full, and that therefore those statements were not made at random and without knowledge. This is not only true of these statements, but it is equally true of the other statements which remain these too will yet be met to the full in the progress of this great evil of religious legislation now so positively and so fully entered upon. For, in addition to this legislation, and in advance of it, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision Feb. 29, 1892, in which the Court unanimously declared this to be "a religious people" and "a Christian Nation," and so accom. plished all that was intended to be accomplished in the religious Amendment to the Constitution proposed by Senator Blair and cited on pages 96 and 97 of this discussion. The scope that was given to the subject by questions asked of me by the Senate Committee, has opened the way for a somewhat exhaustive treatment of the subject. These questions being raised by United States senators, - men of national affairs, - show that a wider circulation of this matter is not out of place. The subject is worthy of the careful attention of the whole American people. In enlarging as I have upon the matter presented in the original hearing, the meaning or intention of any statement has not been changed in the slightest degree. The argument is submitted to the American people with the earnest hope that they will give thoughtful consideration to the principles involved. The positions taken will bear the severest test of every form of just criticism, A. T. J. CONTENTS. SYNOPSIS.Introduction, 3-7; Beginning of Mr. Jones's Argument before the Senate Committee, 9, 10; The Words of Christ, II, 12; Civil Government a Social Compact, 13-16; What to God? What to Cæsar? 17-20; The Sabbath Not Due to Cæsar, 21, 22; Civil Sabbath Laws Antichristian, 23, 24; The Civil Power Enforces Civility, 25, 26; Sunday-Law Inconsistency, 27, 28; Laws against Blasphemy, 29-40; Christianity and Roman Law, 41, 42; The United States Con- stitution, 43, 44; Sunday Laws Religious Legislation, 45, 46; Sunday Laws Unconstitutional, 47, 48; Sunday-Law Petitions, 49, 50; Sunday Laws Not Good, 51, 52; Religion Necessary to a Rest Day, 53, 54; A Rest Day Belongs Only to God, 55, 56; The History of It, 57, 58; À New Theocracy, 59, 60; The Government of Israel, 61, 62; The New Theocracy, 63-66; The Fourth-Century Theocracy, 67, 68; Fourth- Century Sunday Laws, 69, 70; The Union of Church and State, 71, 72; The Foundation of the Inquisition, 73, 74; No Scripture Authority for Sunday, 75, 76; Sabbath Laws Belong Only with a Theocracy, 77, 78; More! More! More! More! 79, 80; Enforced Church-going on Sunday, 81, 82; The Object of Sunday Laws, 83, 84; Shall the Church Compel the Civil Power? 85, 86; The Cardinal Knows What He is Doing, 87, 88; The Argument Is Logical, 89, 90; Sunday Laws Mean Church and State, 91, 92; Only God Can Enforce the Decalogue, 93, 94; No Earthly Theocracy - No Sunday Laws, 95, 96; A National Religion Proposed, 97, 98; Worse than Russia, 99, 100; The State Not a Religious Partisan, 101, 102; Shall this Majority Rule? 103, 104; Sunday Laws and the Working-Men, 105-108; Wages for Doing Nothing, 109-112; Church Members Compel Work on Sunday, 113, 114; The Preachers Desecrate the Day, 115, 116; Will They Compel Themselves? 117, 118; An Exemption Clause, 119, 120; Exemption Is Toleration in Disguise, 121, 122; The Workings of a Sunday Law, 123- 128; Subversion of Liberty, 129, 130; The Workings of a Sunday Law, 131-134; Legislative Power not Omnipotent, 135, 136; An Unconsti- tutional Decision, 137, 138; The Pharisees Justified Themselves, 139, 140; Sunday Laws Invade Inalienable Rights, 141-146; Earthly Gov- ernments Civil, Not Moral, 147–152; Is the Objection Imaginary? 153, 154; No Ticket of Leave for Us, 155, 156; W. C. T. U. Legislation, 157, 158; Exemption for the Territories, 159, 160; The New Doctrine of Protection, 161, 162; Two Sundays Instead of One, 163, 164; The Answer to Unanswerable Arguments, 165, 166; The Authority for Sunday Laws, 167-172; No Authority for Sunday Laws, 173-183; THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW. ARGUMENT OF ALONZO Ť. JONES BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D. C. - Senator Blair. There are gentlemen present who wish to be heard in opposition to the bill. Prof. Alonzo T. Jones, of Battle Creek College, Mich., is one of those who have spoken to me in regard to it. Will you not state, Prof. Jones, what your desire is? I have no doubt that we can obtain leave of the Senate to sit during its session to-day. It is exceedingly desirable to go on with this hearing, and complete it now. How would such an arrangement comport with your convenience? First, state, please, whom you represent, and your reasons for desiring to be heard. Mr. Jones. - Mr. Chairman, I represent the people known as Seventh-day Adventists. It is true, we have been entirely ignored by the other side. The very small "sect," as they stated it, of Seventh-day Baptists has been recognized, but we are more than. three times their number, and many times their power in the real force of our work. We have organizations in every State and Territory in the Union. We have the largest printing-house in Michigan; the largest printing-house on the Pacific Coast; the largest Sanitarium in the world; a college in California and one in Michigan; an academy in Massachusetts; a printing establishment in Basel, Switzerland; one in Christiana, |