The Arkansaw traveler., 1884-04-12

mand and that its obligation lay n tt expedsency and n its use for the suppcF of spirituality and worship n the church These views were held by Grotiu, knol ard all the other leaders ot the refcrma ton, so far as can be gathered from wha they have written on the subject. In deed. not ~ithstanding the early ,eAchin, and position of the Church of Rome, a to the Saobaiic nature of Sunday. Il va. never so enforced upon the continent Q Europe. and IS not 10 this day. II IS ss the puritans of England and New Eng land that we owe that hyper-phArisA,. enforcement of the Sabba,ic idea. | was when ,he Puri,ans got possession o the parliament; of England during ths reign of Charles l. and under the com. monwealth of Cromwell. that the Sunday laws oiiglna,ed, giving " to Sunday keep ing an aus,etity hy which neither it nol the Sabbath keeping of the Jews had eve, before been m marked."
 l. IL was. therefore. by the then doml. nan, spirit of religious 5Igo,g that stands without parallel Tn history. as that spirit vas backed by unlimited DO iitical power. that the Sabbath idea and the Sunday ia~s were formulated and en, forced. The Westminster Confession oi Faith Was formulated m iolS IL was adopted hy All the Independents and the presbyterians ln scotland. England. and Aiterward Tn America. This conception of the SAbba,io Sunday, based upon Divlne command. was crystaliEed and perpe,ua,ed by the confession of faith ihroushou; the Aaglo-SaNon race. and thus the Anglo-SaNon race stands ~i,h a Sabbath sunday such as is held and be liesed m by no other Christian race or n ition on Inc globe. IL IS nothing more or less than one of the petrlfed results and ieiies of the revolution of foa.
 Il. i.e; me therefore recaplinlAte the results ot wha, have said
 | tlrs;. We md that there IS no au- ihority whatever in the scriptures, d,ree, or lnierentlal. for keeping Sunday AS ], Sahoaih.
 secondly, that the early church dii nat co1sider sunday IS Sabbath, nor did they so observe II. Tor 9ao years after nust and that no churcnes except the Ang g.o-N aNop chur ,hes of England and l AmerIca. at a small portion of the iiol ] lander. ever have observed |, tigidly as a Sabbath.
 Thirdly. that on account oi the resurrection of Christ upon that day, sunday vas adopted by the early Chris ,Ians IS the day mos, proper to be set apart as day of worship. thanksgiving i and praise. IL was simply matter oi choice. IL was agreed upon. They did not claim tha. II was based upon revela- ton or apostolic command IS binding The bible was never quoted to sustain the observance Of |, untll lco years after ward
 We therefore conclude. sI Tha, the observance If sund-y as | holy day is purely religious and conventional GUS tom, based upon expediency and con venIencc, and that its observance IS no, binding upon any human being whose conscience does not command IL We conclude, (, ) That the observance oi | sunday as a Sabbath oanno, be more Ap- propriately the subject o. state Legislation than can any other question that IS purely one of religious opinion. And thz, |, is therefore just as legitimate to enac, q statute enforcing the observance of Good ] Friday, or Christmas day or Lent, or any other day regarded sacred by any DOT i lion of the Christian community pro- vided such portion of the Christian com munity can secure a majority of the leg stature
 ] III. This then brings us to the constl- tutional point of view, and springs the question What constitutional righ, has the state to enact laws upon the subject Thus question can be decided by an ,n- : ,elligen, considerai alton of the original and ieu af IeStnp .n4 of. t~ government. 1 ;sike Il ,o be a propo- s,ion which no lawyer will dispute, that the original and sole design oi secular or state government. Is the pro iectlon of the life, the property and the personal liberties or rights of the citizen do not believe tha, there IS conceivable law tha; can be regarded as cons,liu- ,ionsl or legitimate which does not have for its ultimate design one or the other of these things, Inc pro,e ction Of the life property or personal rights ot the c.,.fen. Ihe state has in the nature of things the rght and ls under the obligation 70 legis- late upon all questions affecting life property ard liberty. She vas created for the very purpose of protecting her creators in these respects. This IS the original design of d governments, oi whatever form or nature they may be. IL IS most ooslously true, however. ot re- publican or demo- ratie government,
 Bu, II does not lie viihsn the province Of he state to enact la~s touching men on any other subject. l; does not espec- Iaily he within the proyIn c of the state 10 ieglsla,e | oon religious subjects. be cause religion $ purely matter of ihe soul The state can take no cognixance z of the soul. She has ,o do with the body only. and with material inieres, and per. sonal rights. She can therefore touch re ligion only al the point of personal righ:s She IS bound :0 protec, the citizen n Inc worship of God. or of anything else ac- corGing 70 the dictates of his osn con- science: but she has no right to prescribc anything 10 he conscience of the eI,zen one has no nigh, 10 pres ribe 70 ,he ci;i- zen how he shall worship. IT even whom he shall worship Bui sne has the rlgh,