Home | Newsletters | Books | Tracts | Guest Book | Links | Contact Us | Donate | Search   


Present Truth Articles Online



2 Peter 1:12

Dear Readers,

November 2008

“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Titus 1:4). Hold fast to the Lord; soon He will be all you can rely upon. 

Florida Camp Meeting Reminder: The brethren in Florida are planning a camp meeting for February 19-24, 2009, at a new and better location in the Ocala National Forest, about 30 miles southeast of Ocala. Contact Jerri Raymond, 407-291-9565. 

Address Change Announcement: Please notice our new address on page 12. 

In this Issue

The Thoughts of the Heart

by Lynnford Beachy

A New Printing Machine

by Lynnford Beachy

Something for the Young at Heart

The National Sunday Law (Part 2)

by Alonzo T. Jones

The Thoughts of the Heart 

by Lynnford Beachy 

You probably have heard the saying, “You are what you eat.” More accurately, it could be said that you are what your body assimilates, or what enters your blood stream. Not everything you eat is assimilated by the body; part of it is expelled as waste. 

Your mind works in a similar way, and, in fact, the Bible refers to the mind as “belly” several times. (See John 7:37-39; Proverbs 18:8; 20:27.) “For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat” (Job 34:3). 

Many thoughts enter your mind, but only those you choose to think upon, and dwell upon, will become a part of you. Those thoughts you choose not to dwell upon are expelled and do not become a part of you; much like your digestive system. 

The thoughts you choose to dwell upon will make up who you are. You are what you think. Do not confuse this with, “You are what you think you are.” That is not what I mean. Your character and personality is made up of the thoughts that you chose to dwell upon throughout your life. 

The wise man once said, “As he thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7). Your whole character, or personality, was made up, day by day, by the things that you chose to think about, and dwell upon. 

This truth was expressed by Paul when he wrote, “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:18). What we behold, or dwell upon, is what we will become changed into. 

John instructed us to dwell upon God’s love. (See 1 John 3:1.) Paul counseled us to dwell upon pure thoughts. (See Philippians 4:8.) These things will change us for the good. 

Evil Thoughts 

God sent a flood to destroy the world, and the reason God said that it must be done was because of their thoughts. “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). 

“The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD” (Proverbs 15:26). Contrast this with: “The thoughts of the righteous are right” (Proverbs 12:5). A primary difference between the righteous and the wicked is their thoughts. The Bible describes how love behaves, and says love “thinketh no evil” (1 Corinthians 13:5). 

Here is a challenging verse: “The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts” (Psalms 10:4). Notice this verse does not say that God is not in some of their thoughts, but that God is not in all of their thoughts. When I was in the world of drugs and alcohol, I thought about God occasionally, but God was not in all of my thoughts. In contrast, Jesus Christ had God in all of His thoughts. We are counseled, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). 

Repent for Evil Thoughts 

Jesus expounded on God’s law, explaining that God’s law is broader than the restrictions of an outward act of sin. He said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27, 28). 

Jesus said, “A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matthew 12:35-37). 

Before your mouth ever speaks it, your mind thinks it. Every idle thought that we choose to dwell upon, we will give an account thereof in the day of judgment. We are required to repent for vain and unholy thoughts. Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22). 

David wrote, “I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love.” (Psalm 119:113) God hates vain or unprofitable thoughts. He said, “wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?” (Jeremiah 4:14). 

Isaiah wrote, “Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon” (Isaiah 55:6, 7). God pleads with us to forsake our ungodly thoughts of sin and turn to Him for mercy and forgiveness. 

Full Commitment 

There are certain requests that cannot be made by a half-committed Christian, such as: “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Psalms 139:23, 24). David was inviting God to investigate his thought life. He wanted to know if there was any wickedness there so it could be removed. A half-committed Christian would not make such a request, because they know that they are holding onto certain things that they don’t want God to take from them. 

Job asked God, “That which I see not teach thou me: if I have done iniquity, I will do no more” (Job 34:32). Again, this is the prayer of a fully committed Christian. 

“Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established” (Proverbs 16:3). If you commit everything you do to God, He will direct your paths. “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths” (Proverbs 3:6). 

Sin begins in the mind and, if we hope to overcome sin, we must begin in the mind. Solomon wrote, “Keep thy heart [or mind] with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Proverbs 4:23). 

Jesus said, “That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” (Mark 7:20-23). 

Notice where evil thoughts come from, “out of the heart.” So the real difference between the righteous and the wicked is their hearts. To have “right” thoughts we must have a new heart. 

Jesus said, “Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matthew 23:26-28). 

Many of us are in need of a change in our lives. We need a deeper consecration to God. We need to submit our lives more fully to God than we ever have before. This will not be accomplished by making the outside of our lives appear clean. We cannot be truly clean unless the inside of our lives is clean. A man may appear to be the most upright man alive and yet be filled inside with evil thoughts. This man is not truly clean. Jesus said if we first clean the inside of the cup, the outside will become clean as well. If we first seek for a change of heart in the inward man, the outward will naturally become clean also. 

This change of heart cannot come by striving in our own strength to obey a list of regulations. This will never work, for we would be striving to clean the outside of the cup while the inside is still filthy. The change must come from within, which can only be accomplished by the transforming power of the love of God, and the abiding presence of Christ and His Father. (See John 14:23.) 

Cleansed by the Word 

James wrote, “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded” (James 4:7, 8). 

Jesus said, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3). This is God’s chosen method of purifying our souls. Dependance upon God’s promises in His Word brings the power we need to overcome every evil thought. 

Paul explained, “(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5). Praise God for this wonderful promise! 

Another wonderful promise is: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13). What is that way of escape that God has provided? God says, “Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me” (Psalm 50:15). 

When we are being tempted, we must call upon the Lord for deliverance, and He will come and help us. Jesus said, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” (John 14:18). Paul wrote, “For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour [“to run to the cry of those in danger, to help”—Thayer’s Greek Lexicon] them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:18). Jesus Himself has suffered being tempted, therefore He knows exactly how to help us when we are being tempted, and will come when we cry unto Him. For “greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4). 

The Temptations of Christ 

Christ was presented with impure thoughts throughout His life on earth, yet not one of those thoughts were allowed to linger and become a part of Him. An example of this is given in the book of Matthew. 

Shortly after Christ’s baptism He went into the wilderness, “Then the devil taketh Him [Christ] up into the holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto Him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” (Matthew 4:5-7). 

When Christ was confronted by this evil suggestion, His immediate response was, “It is written.” Christ wasted no time in dealing with this unholy influence. He did not wait and think about it to determine whether it would give Him some satisfaction. As soon as this suggestion was recognized as an unholy influence, or a vain thought, Christ immediately combated it with God’s Word. 

Christ knew that He would be presumptuous to expect His Father to save Him after He had done something like throwing Himself off of a wall. This is why He said, “It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” 

Christ was not free from temptation for the Bible says, “we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). What does it mean to be tempted like as we are? 

A Biblical Definition of Temptation 

James wrote, “every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death” (James 1:14, 15). We are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lust and enticed. This enticement is done in the mind. When we allow that enticement to take root in our minds, then we have sinned; even before any outward manifestation has occurred. 

Christ felt these enticements like as we do, yet He never, even in thought, allowed these enticements to determine His next thoughts or actions to be sinful. There is a saying that goes like this: “You cannot stop a bird from flying over your head, but you can stop him from making a nest there.” 


Paul gave us good instruction as to what we should dwell upon when he wrote, “the love of Christ constraineth us” (2 Corinthians 5:14). The Greek word that was translated “constraineth” means “to compel, to preoccupy.” (Strong’s Greek Lexicon) Let the love of Christ so rivet the attention that it will be your preoccupation throughout every day of your lives, to the end that you will have that same kind of love. 

May God continually make us aware when a vain thought threatens to crowd our mind so that we can choose, at that point, to call upon God for help in casting that thought out of our mind with “it is written.” God’s Word will act as an elevating influence to draw the attention from idle thinking. Isaiah wrote, “thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left” (Isaiah 30:21). 

Something for the Young at Heart 

This month we are beginning a series of crossword Bible studies based on a Bible Lesson written by Lynnford Beachy, entitled, “God’s Love on Trial,” based on the book by the same title. In order to maintain the flow of the study, this crossword puzzle is not split into Across and Down sections—Across or Down is indicated at the end of each line. 

The Origin of the Trial (Lesson 1) 

Note:    There was a time when all of God’s creation was in harmony with God. Everyone was aware of God’s great love for them. At that time, there was no question in anyone’s mind regarding the goodness and integrity of God. Yet, this harmony and peace was broken by the rise of sin in the heart of Lucifer, whom we now call Satan. 

  • Lucifer was ____ from heaven. Isaiah 14:12—7 Down 
  • Lucifer was ____ from the day he was created. Ezekiel 28:15— 13 Across 
  • A perfect person will keep God’s ____. 1 Chronicles 29:19—1 Across 
  • Jesus said you must ____ God with all your heart. Matthew 22:37— 9 Down 
  • Jesus said this is the first and ____ commandment. Matthew 22:38— 6 Across 

Note:    When Lucifer was perfect He obviously obeyed the first and greatest commandment, which is to love God with all his heart, all his soul, and all his mind. 

  • We love God because He ____ loved us. 1 John 4:19—14 Across 

Note:    Love for God always begins with an understanding and appreciation of God’s love for us. When Lucifer was perfect, and loved God with all his heart, he must have had a deep appreciation of God’s love for him. 

  • ____ was found in Lucifer. Ezekiel 28:15—16 Across 
  • Lucifer’s ____ was lifted up. Ezekiel 28:17—10 Down 

Note:    This is another way of saying that Lucifer became proud. 

  • Lucifer’s ____ became corrupted. Ezekiel 28:17—15 Down 

Note:    The only wisdom that would be relevant in this context is Lucifer’s wisdom about God’s character of love. This is the wisdom that became corrupted in Lucifer as a result of his pride. 

Note:    While Lucifer was perfect, he viewed God as a Person who is loving, just, and fair in everything He does and, therefore, Lucifer loved God with all his heart. However, Lucifer began to turn his eyes upon himself and realize how beautiful, how perfect, how wise, he was. He started to become proud of himself, his beauty, and his abilities. As this went on, he started to believe that he deserved a more exalted position than God had given him. He started to think that since he was so wonderful, and deserved a better position in heaven, God was not being fair to him for withholding from him what he deserved. After this, Lucifer began looking upon God as a Person who is unfair, unjust, and selfish. No longer did he recognize God’s character of love. His wisdom about God’s character of love became corrupted; he began to doubt God’s love, causing his love for God to diminish. 

  • Satan wanted to be like the ___ ___. Isaiah 14:14 (2 words)—2 Down 
  • There was ____ in heaven. Revelation 12:7—3 Down 
  • Michael and his ____ fought. Revelation 12:7—8 Across 
  • The ____ and his angels also fought. Revelation 12:7—18 Across 
  • The Dragon and his angels ____ not. Revelation 12:8—11 Down 

Note:    The Dragon is another name for Satan. 

  • There was no ____ found in heaven for them. Revelation 12:8—12 Across 
  • The dragon and his angels were ___ ___. Revelation 12:9 (2 words)— 5 Down 
  • Satan drew a ____ part of the stars to earth. Revelation 12:4— 17 Across 
  • ____ represent angels. Revelation 1:20—4 Across 

Note:    Sin began with a disbelief in God’s love, and Lucifer knew that if he could get others to disbelieve God’s love they would join him in his rebellion. He took up the unholy task of bringing God’s love into question; of putting God’s love on trial. 

Answers to Last Month's Crossword

A New Printing Machine 

by Lynnford Beachy 

On August 19, 1991, God called me out of the world to serve Him. From that day forward, God has given me a strong desire to share the gospel with as many people as I could. Within a couple years God called me to share the gospel through printed material. Since 1993 I have been involved in writing and editing Christian literature. Canon Copier

We have been printing Present Truth each month since January, 1998. For the first eight years I was physically involved in the printing of it, along with all the preparations involved in mailing it. For over two years now, I have been unable to physically help to print Present Truth, because my family and I have moved away from West Virginia where our print shop is located. This has placed an extra burden upon our brethren in West Virginia who are already heavily burdened with printing another monthly publication along with a multitude of other tasks of producing books, tracts, DVDs, etc. I have been wanting to start a print shop to help relieve this burden, as well as to allow others to participate in the printing work. 

Some dear brethren near Orlando, Florida, received a visit from a pastor who challenged them with a question, “What are you doing to share the gospel with those around you?” 

This challenge started a desire in their hearts to begin printing literature to share with others. Jim and Jerri Raymond offered to help with the printing work, and to provide a room for a printing machine to print Present Truth. They have been preparing a room for this purpose, even before anything was decided, and there was no printing machine available. They just wanted to be ready to help. 

At the beginning of our last trip across the country, my wife and I were fully intending to return to the western part of the country before winter, but God impressed us to pray about going to Florida to help get the printing work started there; after prayer we both were impressed that God wants us to go to Florida. Shortly after this decision, a dedicated family donated the funds to purchase a printing machine. Now the newly prepared room has a printing machine ready to print Present Truth, and the paper you are reading now was printed on this machine. It is a Canon Color Image Runner irc3200, capable of printing 32 pages per minute in either color or black and white. It is a large laser printer and copy machine. One amazing feature of this machine is that it will print both sides of each page, then arrange them in the proper order, staple them in the middle and fold them, so they come out like a booklet. 

Starting this month we are printing Present Truth from Altamonte Springs, Florida. Even though it will be printed and mailed from Florida, Present Truth is still published and funded by Smyrna Gospel Ministries. I am thankful to God for expanding His printing work, and I pray it will expand even more. I would like to leave you with the same challenge Jim and Jerri were given. What are you doing to share the gospel with those around you? These printing machines are fairly inexpensive to buy (from $2,000 to $2,500) and to operate (.5-1.6 cents per page for ink). It would be wonderful to have many more print shops around the world. 



The National Sunday Law (Part 2) 

(The following is a portion of an argument of Alonzo T. Jones before The United States Senate, December 13, 1888, opposing the Blair Bill promoting a Sunday law.    Editor

Senator Blair: You oppose all the Sunday laws of the country, then? 

Mr. Jones: Yes, sir. 

Senator Blair: You are against all Sunday laws? 

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. 

Senator Blair: State and national, alike? 

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. 

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. 

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? 

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. 

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. 

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 Caesar’s jurisdiction; it comes within the line of duties which the Scripture shows to pertain to our neighbor, and with it Caesar has to do. 

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. 

Senator Blair: Now apply that right to this case — to the institution of the Sabbath among men for the good of men. 

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.” 

Senator Blair: Upon what ground did they say, No? 

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. 

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 Caesar regulates society, then the majority has a right in this country to say what we shall render to Caesar. 

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 Caesar 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. 

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? 

Mr. Jones: As to its disturbing others, I have proved that it does not. They body of your question states my position exactly. 

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?” 

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. 

Senator Blair: Suppose the practice of it in society at large is hurtful to society? 

Mr. Jones: That will have to be explained. How is it hurtful to society? 

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. 

Mr. Jones: He has the right to restrain us. He does restrain us. 

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. 

Mr. Jones: What is blasphemy here, would not be blasphemy in China, and many other countries. 

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? 

Mr. Jones: No; I do not mean that. 

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? 

Mr. Jones: There are many things that the Scriptures show to be blasphemy. 

Senator Blair: The power of the law has undertaken in various States to say that certain things are blasphemy. 

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? 

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? 

Mr. Jones: In relation to any one of the first four commandments. 

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? 

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? 

Senator Palmer: Abstaining from blasphemy is a part of the education of the youth of the country. 

Mr. Jones: That is true. If youth are properly educated, they will never blaspheme. 

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. 

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. 

Senator Blair: Covetousness is a state of mind; but when it becomes practice by stealing — taking from another without consideration — the law interferes. 

Mr. Jones: Certainly. 

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. 

Mr. Jones: Never! You forbid the theft, not the covetousness. You cannot invade the condition of mind in which lies the covetousness. 

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. 

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.” 

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. 

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. 

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.” 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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: 

“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.” 

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. 

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 to-day 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Senator Blair: The law was wrong, you say? 

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. 

Senator Blair: That law was not for the good of society? 

Mr. Jones: No, sir. 

Senator Blair: Certainly it was not. Then you have to repeal the law or obey it. 

Mr. Jones: It ought to be repealed. 

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. 

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. 

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? 

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. 

Before Christianity was preached in the world, the Roman empire had among its laws these statutes: 

“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. 

“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. 

“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.” 

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: 

Magistrate: “Have you a particular God of your own, — a god not recognized by the Roman law?” 

Christian: “Yes.” 

M: “Did you not know that the law is against it?” 

C: “Yes.” 

M: “Have you not introduced a new religion?” 

C: “Yes.” 

M: “Did you not know that the law is against it?” 

C: “Yes.” 

M: “ Did you not know that the penalty is death, for those of the lower ranks?” 

C: “Yes.” 

M: “You are of the lower ranks?” 

C: “Yes.” 

M: “You have introduced a new religion?” 

C: “Yes.” 

M: “You have a God of your own?” 

C: “Yes.” 

M: “What is the penalty?” 

C: “Death.” 

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 to-day 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. 

The principle that the Christians asserted was to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to deny the right of Caesar to demand anything that pertains to God. They gave their lives in support of that principle, against the law of the Roman empire, and against the very existence of the Roman empire. This principle was asserted and maintained until it forced the Roman empire, with all its power, to recognize the right of every man to have a particular god of his own, and to worship that god as he chose. The Roman empire did come in the days of Constantine and Licinius to that point. At the death of Galerius, it was decreed in the Roman law, by the emperors Constantine and Licinius in the Edict of Milan, that every man should be at liberty to have any god he pleased, and worship him as he pleased. But it was the Christian principle that forced the Roman empire to that point in the face of all its laws and institutions of ages. 

Our national Constitution embodies the very principle announced by Jesus Christ, that the civil government shall have nothing to do with religion, or with what pertains to God; but shall leave that to every man’s conscience and his God. As long as he is a good citizen, the nation will protect him and leave him perfectly free to worship whom he pleases, when he pleases, as he pleases, or not to worship at all, if he pleases. 

In Article VI. of the Constitution of the United States, this nation says that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” By an amendment making more certain the adoption of the principle, it declares in the first amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This first amendment was adopted in 1789, by the first Congress that ever met under the Constitution. In 1796 a treaty was made with Tripoli, in which it was declared (Article II.) that “the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” This treaty was framed by an ex-Congregationalist clergyman, and was signed by President Washington. It was not out of disrespect to religion or Christianity that these clauses were placed in the Constitution, and that this one was inserted in that treaty. On the contrary, it was entirely on account of their respect for religion, and the Christian religion in particular, as being beyond the province of civil government, pertaining solely to the conscience, and resting entirely between the individual and God. This fact is so well stated by Mr. Bancroft in his “History of the Constitution of the United States,” that I will here insert it: 

“In the earliest States known to history, government and religion were one and indivisible. Each State had its special deity, and often these protectors, one after another, might be overthrown in battle, never to rise again. The Peloponnesian War grew out of a strife about an oracle. Rome, as it sometimes adopted into citizenship those whom it vanquished, introduced in like manner, and with good logic for that day, the worship of their gods. No one thought of vindicating religion for the conscience of the individual, till a voice in Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the life of humanity, by establishing a pure, spiritual, and universal religion for all mankind, enjoined to render to Caesar only that which is Caesar’s. The rule was upheld during the infancy of the gospel for all men. No sooner was this religion adopted by the chief of the Roman empire, than it was shorn of its character of universality, and enthralled by an unholy connection with the unholy State; and so it continued till the new nation, — the least defiled with the barren scoffings of the eighteenth century, the most general believer in Christianity of any people of that age, the chief heir of the Reformation in its purest forms, — when it came to establish a government for the United States, refused to treat faith as a matter to be regulated by a corporate body, or having a headship in a monarch or a State. 

“Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely ordained of God in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the people of the several States, withheld from the Federal Government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the infinite Spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity and power.” — Last chapter. 

At this point I am brought to the assertion of the second of the principles upon which we stand in our opposition to Sunday laws, or any other form of religious legislation: that is, the principle of the Constitution of the United States; and upon this principle I maintain that this proposed Sunday law is unconstitutional. 

The object of this Sunday bill is wholly religious. The last section shows the object of the entire bill; and that is, “to secure to the whole people rest,… and the religious observance of the Sabbath day.” No one, therefore, need attempt to evade the force of objections against this bill by saying that it is not the religious, but the civil, observance of the day that is required; because it is plainly declared in the bill itself, that it is not only to secure rest to all the people, but that it is also to secure the religious observance of the Sabbath day. There is not a single reference in the bill to any such thing as the civil observance of the day. The word civil is not used in the bill. It is a religious bill wholly. The title of the bill declares that its object is to secure to the people the enjoyment of the Lord’s day as a day of rest, “and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.” The first section defines the Lord’s day; the second section refers to the day as one of worship and rest; the third section refers to it as a day of religious worship; the fourth section refers to its observance as that of religious worship; and the sixth section plainly declares, what is apparent throughout, that the object of the bill is “to secure to the whole people rest,… and the religious observance of the Sabbath day,” on the first day of the week. 

It is the religious observance of the day that its promoters, from one end of the land to the other, have in view. In the convention, now in session in this city, working in behalf of this bill, only yesterday Dr. Crafts said, “Taking religion out of the day, takes the rest out.” 

In the “Boston Monday Lectures,” 1887, Joseph Cook, lecturing on the subject of Sunday laws, said: 

“The experience of centuries shows, however, that you will in vain endeavor to preserve Sunday as a day of rest, unless you preserve it as a day of worship. Unless Sabbath observance be founded upon religious reasons, you will not long maintain it at a high standard on the basis of economic and physiological and political considerations only.” 

And in the Illinois State Sunday convention held in Elgin, Nov. 8. 1887, Dr. W. W. Everts declared Sunday to be “the test of all religion.” 

Sunday is a religious institution wholly; Sunday legislation, wherever found, is religious legislation solely; and this bill does not in its terms pretend to be anything else than religious. Being therefore as it is, religious legislation, it is clearly unconstitutional. In proof of this, I submit the following considerations: 

All the powers of Congress are delegated powers. It has no other power; it cannot exercise any other. Article X. of Amendments of the Constitution expressly declares that: 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 

In all the powers thus delegated to Congress, there is no hint of any power to legislate upon any religious question, or in regard to the observance of any religious institution or rite. Therefore, this Sunday bill, being a religious bill, is unconstitutional; and any legislation with regard to it will be unconstitutional. Sunday being a religious institution, any legislation by Congress in regard to its observance, will be unconstitutional as long as the United States Constitution shall remain as it now is. 

To be Continued… 

(This article was taken from pages 23-47 of the book entitled, The National Sunday Law, by Alonzo T. Jones. Some editing was done for this publication.    Editor


To view or print this issue of Present Truth in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) click here.

Present Truth is published monthly by Present Truth Ministries. It is sent free upon request. Duplication of these papers is not only permitted but strongly encouraged, as long as our contact information is retained. Present Truth is available online at www.presenttruth.info.

Editor: Lynnford Beachy, PO Box 315, Kansas, OK 74347, USA. Phone: (304) 633-5411, E-mail: webnewsletters@presenttruth.info.

Top of page               Home




Home    E-mail    Contact Us