The American Sentinel 11
January 23, 1896
“How Are the ‘Powers that Be’ Ordained?” American Sentinel 11, 4, pp. 25, 26.
THIS question is answered by the Scriptures: “The powers that be are ordained of God.” 1 AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.1
“There is not power 2 but of God,” just as there is no life but of God; he is the source of all life and of all authority, and where either exists it is by the ordinance of God. AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.2
“For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” 3 AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.3
This is not saying, however, that all things created or ordained by God are used for the purpose for which he ordained them. “We wrestle not against flesh and blood,” says the apostle, “but against principalities, against powers.” 4 And again of Christ we read: “Having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them.” 5 AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.4
In these texts it is declared that we wrestle against powers, and that Christ triumphed over powers; and yet these powers are among the things which he himself created; why then do we resist them, and why did Christ himself triumph over them? It is because they have been perverted from the purpose for which they were ordained and are used for another purpose, just as the powers which God gives to man are so often used in sinning against him. The power 6 that crushes out the life of the victim of lust or malice is just as truly from God as is the power that feeds the hungry or rescues the perishing; but the one is perverted and used to dishonor God; the other is used for the purpose for which it was was [sic.] ordained, and God is honored thereby. The latter exercise of power is legitimate; the former is usurpation. To illustrate: Suppose President Cleveland should declare war against Great Britain, would not everybody say he had not power to do it? that it was not an act of power but of usurpation? Certainly; because while such a thing is a physical and moral possibility, the President has no such authority. The people have ordained no such power in the President, but have, by the Constitution, vested it in Congress. AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.5
Since God is not the author of sin, and has given no man or set of men authority to practice oppression, all governmental injustice is as antagonistic to the divine ordinance of civil authority as a declaration of war by the President without the consent of Congress would be to the Constitution of the United States. AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.6
Satan, now the enemy of all righteousness, was once a mighty angel in heaven. He was created by God, and by his mighty power was ordained in him by the Creator; but he was not made a devil, nor was his power given to him for the ruin of man. He was created perfect. His God-given powers were to be used for the glory of his Creator, who thus addresses him after his fall:— AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.7
“Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering.... Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” 7 “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: ... I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” 8 AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.8
It was by usurpation that Satan fell, and just as his power has been perverted, so man’s God-ordained powers have been turned aside from the purposes for which they were given, and have been used to dishonor the Creator. The power of choice and of self-defense, the authority to protect the weak, to punish the evil-doer, and to reward the upright, which God gives to man, is too often used for injustice and oppression. But such acts are without the warrant of any divine ordinance; for God ordains no evil. AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.9
We never think of excusing the perpetrators of crime because the power that wields the bludgeon that strikes down beings created in the image of God, springs from the Creator. The Lord has given every man sufficient power to kill if he so wills, but he has given no ma power to kill. The murderer is therefore without excuse. No more should we think of justifying acts of usurpation on the part of human governments, because “the powers that be are ordained of God.” 9 Civil power is ordained of God; but the innate sense of justice implanted in every breast tells us that its sphere is not unlimited; 10 while the divine Word plainly declares that such power is “for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well.” 11 AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.10
It is a self-evident truth that man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights. All wrong, therefore, under color of civil authority, is an act of usurpation and not of God-ordained power. The power that is ordained of God is plainly declared in the Scriptures to be, not for rapine, outrage, and murder, as recently witnessed in Armenia; not for the persecution of honest men for conscience’ sake, as is too often seen in our own land; not to be a “terror to good works, but to the evil.” AMS January 23, 1896, page 25.11
God never made a Herod, a Nero or a Torquemada; he created men in his own image and clothed them with power to do good to their fellowmen. But by usurpation these men made themselves the monsters of cruelty they were, just as Lucifer, the light bearer, became Satan, the adversary, and just as the Turkish officials in Armenia have by acts of unsurpassed barbarity and injustice demonstrated that instead of being the ministers of God “for good,” revengers “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,” they are the emissaries of Satan and enemies of mankind. AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.1
As Madame Roland, on her way to the guillotine, exclaimed: “O Liberty, Liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name,” so might the victims of fanatical hate in all ages, from the time of Rome to the present moment, and in all places, from the mountains of Armenia to the fertile fields of our own fair land, exclaim, “O Book of God, how much of human malice and cruelty has sought shelter in a perversion of thy sublime declaration: ‘There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.’” AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.2
“God in the Constitution” American Sentinel 11, 4, p. 26.
TO the demand that is now being made upon Congress for such a change in the national Constitution as will transform it from a “godless” document to one that will acknowledge God’s supremacy, it may be truthfully replied, God is already in the Constitution. He is in it just as he was in the Declaration of Independence. As a Methodist minister of Baltimore, Rev. W. F. Hamner, has well said, “That grand parchment is the product of God’s Spirit. If you want to see God in it, read that clause which says that all men are born with equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.1
God is in everything that is just. Justice cannot be separated from him, any more than can truth and righteousness. There can no more be two sources of justices, truth, or righteousness than there can be two Gods. And God is in everything that gives true liberty to mankind. He created man a free being; so that liberty,—physical, mental, and moral,—became man’s birthright; and God’s eternal purpose is to assert and restore that liberty where it has been lost. The mission of Jesus Christ to this earth was “to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.” 1 And in defining the nature of the fast that is acceptable to him, God says: “Is not this the fast that I have chosen,—to lose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?” 2 God is the author and defender of human liberty. AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.2
It was therefore in the direct providence of God that there arose this great nation in the western hemisphere, built upon the divine principle of liberty and equal rights to all men. It was in full harmony with the mind and purpose of God that this doctrine should be proclaimed to all the world, as it was and is in the Declaration of Independence. And as it is the purpose of God that all men should be free to choose whether they will worship him or not, it is in accordance with his mind that our national Constitution declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.3
We repeat, therefore, God is in the Constitution. As certainly as it is inspired by the spirit of justice and of liberty to all in the things which it concerns, as the fundamental law of civil government in this Republic, God is in it, though it does not profess the fact. A person may loudly profess to be a follower of Christ; but the spirit which actuates him, and not his profession, is the real test which shows whether he is such or not. And so with the Constitution; its real nature is shown not by any profession it may make, but by the spirit which it breathes forth. And that spirit is the divine spirit of justice, equality, and liberty. AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.4
It is now proposed to change this grand document so as to put within it an “acknowledgment” of God, by changing its preamble to this form: “We, the people of the United States, acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority in civil government, our Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of nations, and his revealed will as of supreme authority in civil affairs, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.” AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.5
Does this breathe forth the divine spirit of fairness and equality to all? Let us see. Who is it that makes this acknowledgment of the existence and authority of the Deity?—Answer: “We, the people of the United States.” But hundreds of thousands, if not millions of citizens here do not believe in God, and very many who do believe in him, and rejoice in the gospel of his Son, would not have his will made the supreme law in civil affairs. What about such people? Why, simply this, that they are not the people of the United States, according to this preamble. By its terms they will be disfranchised. And we can say this on the authority of the Christian Statesman itself,—the organ of the party which is most active in demanding the proposed constitutional amendment; for that journal, in its issue of Nov. 1, 1883, published the following upon this point:— AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.6
What effect would the adoption of the Christian Amendment, together with the proposed changes in the Constitution, have upon those who deny that God is the Sovereign, Christ the Ruler, and the Bible the law? This brings up the conscience question at once.... The classes who object are, as “Truth Seeker” has said, Jews, infidels, atheists, and others. These classes are perfectly satisfied with the Constitution as it is. How would they stand towards it if it recognized the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ? To be perfectly plain, I believe that the existence of a Christian Constitution would disfranchise every logically consistent infidel. AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.7
Certainly; when “we, the people of the United States” do that which no logically consistent “infidel” would do, it is plain that the latter cannot be counted on of “the people.” There are a great many people of all classes and beliefs in this country whom logical consistency, enlightened judgment, and love of justice and liberty would debar form any participation in such action. None of these could, under the proposed amendment, be reckoned as among “the people.” They are all, from the standpoint of this amendment, “infidels,” and of course not qualified to participate in the management of a “Christian” Government. The scheme is in short but the means adopted by the puritanic intolerance of our day for reënacting the traditional resolutions: (1) “Resolved, That the earth was created by the Lord for the use of the saints;” (2) “Resolved, That we are the saints.” AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.8
Having thus declared themselves “the people of the United States,” and having established the fact in the fundamental law of the land, it will simply remain for those who are not “the people” to acquiesce in the scheme or seek a habitation in some other quarter of the globe. It will be said to them, We are the people; this is our land and Government; if you do not like it, get out. This much has already been said in advance, as witnesses the following sentence from a speech delivered by Rev. E. B. Graham at a National Reform convention held at York, Nebraska, and reported in the Christian Statesman, of May 21, 1885, thus:— AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.9
We might add, in all justice, if the opponents of the Bible do not like our government and its Christian features, let them go to some wild, desolate land, and in the name of the devil and for the sake of the devil, subdue it, and set up a government of their on infidel and atheistic ideas, and then, if they can stand it, stay there till they die! AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.10
And should this “Christian” idea of government spread around the globe, as these “reformers” would like to see it, there would be nothing left for the “infidels”—those who differ from them—but to “get off the earth.” AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.11
That the term “infidel” as they use it, does include all who will not join with them in their “reform” scheme, is evident from their own statement as well as from the logic of their position. Rev. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, a leading exponent of this “National Reform,” in a speech made at a National Reform convention held in New York in 1873, thus classified the enemies of the “reform” cause:— AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.12
The atheist is a man who denies the being of God and future life. To him mind and matter are the same; and time is the be-all and end-all of consciousness and of character. AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.13
The deist admits God, but denies that he has any such control over human affairs as we call providence, or that he ever manifests himself and his will in a revelation. AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.14
The Jew admits God, providence, and revelation, but rejects the entire scheme of gospel redemption by Jesus Christ as sheer imagination, or—worse—sheer imposture. AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.15
The Seventh-day Baptists believe in God and Christianity, and are conjoined with the other members of this class by the accident of differing with the mass of Christians upon the question of what precise day of the week shall be observed as holy. AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.16
These all are, for the occasion, and as far as the amendment is concerned, one class. They use the same arguments and the same tactics against us. They must be counted together. AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.17
And with them “must be counted” all, of whatever denomination, who “use the same arguments and the same tactics against us,” that is, who oppose the “reform” scheme with its “Christian” amendment as being un-American, unjust, impolitic, and wicked. If this amendment is carried we shall soon have a new and enlarged definition of the term “infidel.” AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.18
And by this scheme and this process these “reformers” would put God in the Constitution! Taking out of it that spirit of justice, fairness, and equality for all before the law which is now embodies, they would put in its place that unloving, intolerant spirit which says: We are the people; stand out of our way. It you do not believe as we do, get out of this land to some “wild, desolate country,” and stay there till you die! And this they would call putting God in the Constitution! And this they would do—this era of religious controversy, bigotry, and bitterness, they would inaugurate—to “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility,” promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity”! AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.19
Verily, we do not want this reform “god”—the god of bigotry and intolerance—in the Constitution of this Republic. We want in it the God of justice, truth, love, and mercy for all men; and he is there already. AMS January 23, 1896, page 26.20
“‘Jewish’ and Christian” American Sentinel 11, 4, p. 27.
THE Cincinnati Weekly Enquirer, of January 2, quotes the Rev. Mr. Dabb, a Protestant clergyman of New York City, as affirming in a recent discourse that the Sabbath institution is not Christian, but only a part of the ancient “Mosaic code,” with which it passed away at the death of Christ. “The Jewish law,” he said, “was given to the Jewish people and never to any other people. It was binding upon them, but never on Christians, or any other race.” AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.1
The assertion would not be worth noticing did it not express an idea quite generally entertained by professors of Christianity. There is nothing which casts more confusion over the Sabbath question than this. Were it not for the idea that the Sabbath originated as a “Jewish” institution, and that what was Jewish is necessarily separate and distinct from what is Christian, the Sabbath question would not be to-day the difficult and perplexing one that it is to the people generally. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.2
We desire, then, to call the attention of as many as possible to two important facts, implied in the foregoing statements; viz., (1) The Sabbath—the seventh-day rest—is not and never was “Jewish,” and (2) Whatever was given by God to his people of old, pertained to Christianity as truly as do any of the ordinances enjoined upon the Church by Christ and his apostles. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.3
The idea has in some way taken possession of the mind of Christendom that there is an antagonism between the “old dispensation” of “the law and the prophets,” and the “new dispensation” of the preaching of Christ and his kingdom; that the “new dispensation” with its ordinances and precepts, necessarily superseded and abrogated that which pertained to the former times. This idea is as far from the truth as anything could be. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.4
God did not have one plan and purpose for the world in Old Testament times and another plan and purpose for the world in this dispensation. He has had but one purpose, and that is the “eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord;” 1 namely, “that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are in earth.” 2 This one great purpose he has steadily carried forward since the fall of man. Salvation through Christ was the theme of “the law and the prophets.” The Old Testament is as truly the word of Christ as is the New Testament; for Peter tells us that it was the Spirit of Christ that testified through the prophets.” 3 “Unto us,” writes Paul, “was the gospel preached as well as unto them;” 4 that is, to the ancient Israelites who went out from Egypt with Moses. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.5
The gospel, we are told by the same writer, “is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” 5 And in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews we are pointed to the ancient worthies who through faith “subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire,” etc. People in their day had faith in Christ, as truly as people have faith in him to-day. The power of God unto salvation, through that faith,—in other words, the gospel,—was preached to them as truly as it is to us. The gospel ordinances and ceremonies of their day, very largely, pointed forward to Christ, and as such necessarily passed away when Christ’s death upon the cross became an accomplished fact. Since that time the Christian Church has had ordinances and ceremonies pointing back to that event. But whether before or after Christ’s death, they pointed to him as the sacrifice for the salvation of mankind, and as such were the means of expressing faith in him. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.6
The seventh-day Sabbath is never in the Scriptures called “Jewish,” but is termed “the Sabbath of the Lord.” And it is to-day, as it was then, the Sabbath of Jehovah,—the memorial of his creative power, which is also the power by which he redeems the sinner. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.7
Abraham is called in Scripture the father of the faithful. “To Abraham and his seed were the promises made.” 6 And we read, “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” 7 Abraham was as truly a Christian as was Peter or Paul. And all those in every age who have believed on Christ for salvation, have been Christians in fact, whether known by that name or not. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.8
Because the law of God was spoken to the Israelites from Sinai, it does not follow that that law was not for Christians. For, as we have seen, a very large number of those to whom it was spoken were Christians. As Christians, they observed God’s Sabbath,—the seventh day; and that day was, and still is, the Sabbath for all Christians. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.9
Jesus Christ himself was a Jew, and his apostles were Jews. And we also, if we are Christ’s, are Abraham’s seed, and therefore Jews in the true spiritual sense of the word; “for,” we read, “he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of man, but of God.” 8 AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.10
To say, therefore, that the law of God spoken from Sinai “was given to the Jewish people and never to any other people,” and was never binding “on Christians,” simply betrays a fundamental misconception of the purpose and scope of the gospel. If Christendom would shake off this misconception, the whole question of the nature and obligation of the Sabbath, the foundation upon which it rests, and the proper means for securing its observance, would be wonderfully simplified. Seen in the light of the plain statements of Holy Writ, we find no difficulty in knowing what is our own proper attidude [sic.] toward the Sabbath, and what course we should pursue toward others with respect to its observance. But without that light, men can but fall deeper and deeper into error, both of belief and practice. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.11
“Church Federation” American Sentinel 11, 4, pp. 27, 28.
APROPOS to our article of a week ago upon this subject is a paper by R. M. Patterson, D. D., in the Independent of the 9th inst., under the heading, “Figures for Federation.” AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.1
Referring to statistics which appeared in the Independent of the 2nd inst., Dr. Patterson says: “What a numerical array these tables make for the churches: 127,906 ministers, 179,311 congregations, 24,218,180 communicants in the United States of America! But what a lamentable exhibition in the number of organization into which they are divided—151 in all! AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.2
“Of those which claim to be evangelical and are admitted by each other to be so, there are not less than 110,000 ministers, 160,000 congregations, and 16,000,000 communicants.” AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.3
After noting the fact that these denominations have not, with but slight exception, any intercourse with each other, Dr. Patterson gives the following proposed basis of federation:— AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.4
1. The acceptance of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, inspired by the Holy Spirit as containing all things necessary to salvation, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of Christian faith. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.5
2. Discipleship of Jesus Christ, the divine Saviour and Teacher of the world. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.6
3. The Church of Christ ordained by him to preach his gospel to the world. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.7
4. Liberty of conscience in the interpretation of the Scriptures and in the administration of the Church. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.8
Such an alliance of the churches should have regular meetings of their representatives, and should have for its objects, among others, AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.9
1. Mutual acquaintance and fellowship. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.10
2. Coöperation in foreign and domestic missions. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.11
3. The prevention of rivalries between competing churches in the same field. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.12
4. The ultimate organic union of the whole visible body of Christ. AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.13
Whether federation upon such a basis will ever be realized or not remains to be seen. Certainly there is a very strong current running in the direction if not of union at least of a confederacy of churches for the accomplishment of certain purposes; and we are sorry to say, all the objects are not entirely laudible. Another article 1 in these columns points out some of the evils of the so-called National Reform movement whose leaders have secured the introduction of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A federation of churches for any such purpose as that can be nothing but evil. As pointed out last week, religious combination to effect political objects are dangerous, and as a matter of fact the combination known as the American Sabbath Union offically [sic.] organized by fourteen “evangelical” denominations, and in many ways in touch with the National Reform Association, has already exerted a powerful influence upon Congress, leading that body to declare in effect in its World’s Fair legislation that Sunday is the Sabbath according to the fourth commandment. Since under threat of political boycott by this powerful religious combination, Congress has assumed to settle by legislative enactment one religious question, what assurance have we that a like influence would not secure from Congress other and similar measures directly affecting liberty of conscience? AMS January 23, 1896, page 27.14
Continuing the article to which we have referred, Dr. Patterson says:— AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.1
The Northern Presbyterian Church is committed to such a movement. Its General Assembly of 1890 at Saratoga unanimously pronounced in favor of a federation of all the evangelical churches of the land. Favorable progress has been made in negotiations among the Presbyterians and Reformed bodies, but this wider one is aimed at also. It is to be hoped that the correspondence that has been invited by the Congregational Council will be widely entered upon. The result cannot be attained very soon. In such a matter such large bodies must move slowly; but it is well that a beginning has been made. The Presbyterian General Assembly laid down no platform; but it declared in favor of an “official federation in which there shall be no renunciation by the different churches of their peculiarities or independent organizations, and no interference with their doctrines, government or internal affairs, but which shall aim, by the best available methods, to secure coöperation in religious work and in the promotion of such moral and social reforms as affect the welfare of the nation.” The Congregational Council has constructed a platform. If it be not sufficiently safe or comprehensive, let some other be made; but let the correspondence proposed be entered upon with an earnest desire to wipe out the scandal of our inimical divisions, and get in close touch with each other in organized work for the Master and for the perishing millions among whom we mingle. AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.2
All this is doubtless pleasing from the standpoint of numbers. We all like to read about so many millions of Christians and to know that those Christians are working in harmony for the advancement of the gospel. But there is an element of danger in this proposed federation, and it is revealed in the paragraph quoted, by the words: “Which shall aim, by the best available methods to secure coöperation in religious work and in the promotion of such moral and social reforms as effect the welfare of the nation.” Everybody knows that in the eyes of the powerful religious combination to which reference has been made, the “moral and social reform” which most directly and powerfully “affects the welfare of the nation” is the enforcement of Sunday observance; and it is to secure this more than anything else that this still more gigantic confederacy of all the various first day denominations is proposed and urged. AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.3
It is true that there is a very general consensus of opinion that uniform marriage and divorce laws are needed, but not half the energy is put forth nor half the enthusiasm manifested in securing these that there is in the movement in the interests of Sunday legislation. It is true that the “moral” sentiment of the nation was thoroughly aroused against polygamy in Utah several years since, and that even the authorities of the Mormon Church were compelled to bend before the law backed up by that sentiment; but that it was little more than sentiment is shown by a few facts given by Dr. W. F. Crafts in his recent work, “Practical Christian Sociology.” On page 64 of that work the author says:— AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.4
It is a curious fact that in 1887 these two evils [contemporaneous and consecutive polygamy] were exhibited side by side in Utah, where there were among the “Gentiles” about half as many divorces as marriages during that year. AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.5
The AMERICAN SENTINEL has no sympathy whatever with polygamy. We have repeatedly shown that it is destructive of natural rights and is therefore legitimately prohibited by civil law. But of what avail, from a moral standpoint, is the prohibition of “contemporaneous polygamy” if “consecutive polygamy” is permitted to flourish? AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.6
We published only four weeks ago a note from a Cincinnati paper regarding the marriage of a young woman of nineteen and a man of thirty, each of the parties having been divorced, the lady once, the gentleman twice. The lady’s first husband had re-married and each of the gentleman’s wives had been re-married and divorced again after being divorced from him. We are free to say that as between this consecutive polygamy and contemporaneous polygamy there is small choice. Indeed, as practiced in Utah, restrained as it is by a strong though mistaken religious zeal, the contemporaneous polygamy appears to be the lesser evil. But there is not that sentiment against consecutive polygamy that there is against polygamy as it exists in Utah; and why? Simply because it is sentiment rather than settled moral conviction, and herein lies one of the dangers in a federation of churches for the purpose of promoting moral and social reforms. Such combinations are swayed more by sentiment than by reason, and even-handed justice is not to be expected from them. AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.7
“The Spirit of the Inquisition” American Sentinel 11, 4, p. 28.
THE Southwestern Presbyterian, of Dec. 5, 1895, says of Seventh-day Adventists:— AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.1
No law in the land commands these fanatics to keep Sunday as a sacred day, to assemble to worship at that time, but only to keep it a rest day from labor; but these sectarians persist in holding that it is a matter of conscience with them to work on the Lord’s day, and thus show their contempt of the honest convictions of the rest of the Christian world. They are not martyrs, but law-breakers, and as such should be dealt with. AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.2
This breathes the spirit of the Inquisition. It is true that no “law” of the land in so many words commands Seventh-day Adventists or anybody else “to keep Sunday as a sacred day,” “but only to keep it as a day of rest from labor.” But such rest is by the leading advocates of Sunday laws themselves declared to be worship. W. F. Crafts says:— AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.3
One day in every week an invisible Lord commands us to halt in the most absorbing pursuits of our earthly life; in the pursuit of money and business; in the pursuit of pleasure; in the pursuit of politics and fame; in the pursuit of education; and we halt as a sign that we believe in that invisible Lord and are loyal to his law. There is no other sign of our faith and loyalty so impressive to a selfish world as this twenty-four hours halt in our work every week at Christ’s command. The Lord’s day is therefore the “sign,” the ensign of our Lord Jesus Christ; ... and this flag of Christ is carried round the world every week and is saluted by some in every land by the laying aside of tools and toil, in token of their loyalty to a living Lord. AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.4
All this and more is true of the Sabbath of the Lord, and it is for all this and more that Seventh-day Adventists observe the true Sabbath; and it is because this is true of the Sabbath and because it is not true of Sunday that Adventists refuse to acknowledge this false sign of faith and loyalty and thus profess to a selfish world adherence to something which they do not believe. Seventh-day Adventists believe that no other sign of their loyalty to the Creator of the heavens and the earth is so impressive as their twenty-four hour halt in their work every week in obedience to the fourth commandment; and believing this, they feel that they have no right to lessen the significance of that halt by obedience to a commandment of men which requires them to make another halt in honor of another day and another power; for God does not command the Sunday halt. AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.5
He who receives and uses a counterfeit coin is equally criminal with the maker of that coin; and so he who knowingly accepts and uses the counterfeit sabbath—the false sign of loyalty to Christ—partakes of the sin of those who made it. AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.6
The fourth commandment separates the Sabbath, the seventh day, from all other days and requires that all men shall respect that distinction. For Seventh-day Adventists to treat another day as they treat the Sabbath would be to disobey the commandment which requires them to keep the seventh day holy—to preserve the distinction which God himself has made between that and other days. It is for this reason and not from willful disregard of civil authority that Seventh-day Adventists refuse to observe Sunday. To do so would be to prove disloyal to Christ their King. AMS January 23, 1896, page 28.7