The American Sentinel 11
January 30, 1896
“A Lesson for Kings and Rulers” American Sentinel 11, 5, pp. 33, 34.
AT the present time a strong and persistent effort is being made in our country by numerous and powerful “reform” organizations, to secure from the various departments of government a recognition of Jesus Christ as king and ruler of nations. The following words voiced by the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union in National Convention in 1887, furnish good evidence upon this point:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.1
The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, local, State, national, and world-wide, has one vital, organic thought, one all-absorbing purpose, one undying enthusiasm; and that is that Christ shall be this world’s king;—yea, verily, this world’s king in its realm of cause and effect,—king of its courts, its camps, its commerce,—king of its colleges and cloisters,—king of its customs and constitutions.... The kingdom of Christ must enter the realm of law through the gateway of politics. AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.2
It need only be added that such powerful organizations as the Society of Christian Endeavor, the Epworth League, King’s Daughters, etc., are working as earnestly as the W.C.T.U. to bring the kingdom of Christ into the “realm of law through the gateway of politics,” or by the gateway of the ballot-box. AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.3
This being true, what can be more important than that those invested with civil authority should understand the method by which God himself designs to establish the kingdom of Christ in visible form upon this earth; lest without such a knowledge they be led into working at cross-purposes with the plans of Providence. AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.4
It is true, the National Reform Association and other religious organizations have undertaken to enlighten them upon this point; but one chief danger of the situation is that they will accept the dictum of these organizations without verifying their statements by an appeal to the highest source of information. Already our legislators have shown an alarming willingness to be guided by the traditional maxim that “the voice of the people is the voice of God,” and to seek no higher authority for enacting religious legislation. AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.5
But the Scriptures—not the people—voice the will of God. And that divine Word is not without its instruction to kings and rulers as well as to the common people, concerning the fulfillment of the divine purpose embodied in the kingdom of Christ. There is a valuable lesson of this kind in the second Psalm. That is a psalm of the kingship of Christ. As such it is worth the careful study of every person. It is our purpose to consider briefly its statements. AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.6
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.7
What are the “bands” and “cords” of the Lord and his Anointed? The question is answered in the eleventh chapter of Hosea. The Lord says: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt... I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love; and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.” Verses 1-4. AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.8
As God drew his ancient people unto himself, so he would draw all men. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” 1 And, referring to his sacrifice, Jesus said: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” 2 Also he said: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” 3 All who do not resist this drawing will be drawn to God and be saved in his kingdom. Christ is the Anointed of God for this purpose. But not all men will be drawn to the Lord and his Anointed. There are many who say, “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.9
God draws no one who is unwilling to be drawn. His bands are not riveted upon any; his cords may be cast off by whomever chooses to do so. There is no compulsion in the gospel of Christ. The Saviour came not to force men to walk in any path, but to draw them into the way of righteousness by the cords of his love. In no other way can fallen men be brought again into harmony with God. AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.10
In this second Psalm, the kings and rulers of the earth are presented taking counsel together “against the Lord and against his Anointed.” Their intentions evidently go further than a mere rejection of the gospel by themselves as individuals. As kings and rulers, their sentiments naturally find expression in legislation. And as only the representatives of the Lord and his Anointed are visibly present on the earth, their purpose of throwing off the bands and cords of God must be directed against these representatives. Their aim is to put down those that are holding out to all men the cords of God’s love, as the best and only means of attaining to righteousness and salvation. AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.11
But what is the result of their counsel and their plans? We are told, “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.” No effort against the purposes of God can prosper, even though it be backed by all the power and wisdom of the world. The Church of Christ will give her message, the gospel will do its work, regardless of man’s opposition. The project of earthly powers, devised by their wisdom, to stay the purposes of the Most High, is but folly, and a fit matter of derision to him; only it is a very serious matter for them. For “then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.12
We are told concerning the kingdom of Christ in the prophecy of Isaiah: “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this.” 4 AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.13
The zeal of men is not the means of the establishment of Christ’s kingdom. The second Psalm presents the same thought: “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” 5 “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and them that dwell therein;” and he will give it and the kingdoms thereof to his Anointed. This wonderful transaction is presented in the prophecy of Daniel. The prophet says: “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” 6 AMS January 30, 1896, page 33.14
Many have been the attempts made by zealous but misguided men to put the kingdoms of this world, or a part of them, into the possession of Christ. All that human legislation and the force of arms could do, has been done to realize this long-cherished dream. But all such efforts were against that kingdom instead of for it. They were contrary to the divine purpose and plan of drawing men to God by the cords of love. They sought to force mankind into a condition of acceptance with God, and thus to usher in the happy era of Christ’s kingdom of righteousness and peace. And in doing this they ruthlessly put out of the way, so far as was in their power, all such as opposed their purpose with the preaching of the true gospel of self-denial and love to all men. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.1
The Anointed of the Lord receives the kingdoms of this earth not to perpetuate them, but to destroy them. His kingdom cannot be visibly set up on the earth while these remain. They are ruled by those who will not yield allegiance to him. They are of the world, and his kingdom is not of this world. John 18:36. And at the final day, when Christ shall come in the clouds of heaven as King of kings and Lord of lords, they will be, as foreseen by the apostle John, arrayed against him, to resist him as an invader of their realms. Revelation 19:11-19. And then will be fulfilled the latter part of the Lord’s decree,—“Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.2
Thus will the kingdoms of this earth be transferred to the dominion of Christ, and thus will he do with them in the day when that transfer shall be accomplished. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.3
“Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.” Serve him not in hypocrisy, nor mock him with empty forms and profession. Give him not the kiss of insincerity, as did Judas, but the kiss of love. Cast not off the cords of love whereby he would draw you to himself. Trust not in your own power and “imagine a vain thing,” nor lead any to trust in the arm of flesh. The day is near when God alone shall be exalted among the heathen and in all the earth; and “blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.4
“No ‘American Sabbath’” American Sentinel 11, 5, p. 34.
AMS reported in the World, of January 21, the first vice-president of the New England Sabbath Protective League, Rev. Ruen Thomas, has declared that there is no “American sabbath.” While presiding at a meeting of the league, January 20, he said: “I always object to the use of the phrase, ‘The American sabbath,’ as occasionally used by the secretary. There is no American sabbath; Americans did not originate the Sabbath.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.1
This is a true statement, and in harmony what the SENTINEL has often said. We are pleased to note such an opinion coming from an official of a “Sabbath Protective League.” God made the Sabbath, by resting upon and sanctifying the seventh day, at the close of the creation week; and if people would disabuse their minds of the idea that we have in this country an “American sabbath,” to be preserved like any American institution, they would see that God himself has, in the fourth commandment, enacted all the legislation necessary for the preservation of the Sabbath through all time. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.2
We also note with pleasure that this New England “Sabbath League,” “came out flatfooted,” as reported, “against a revival of Blue Law practices.” In this they set a good example, which we trust may prove contagious. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.3
“A Conspiracy Against Our Public Schools” American Sentinel 11, 5, pp. 34, 35.
IN treating “practical Christian sociology from the standpoint of education,” Dr. Crafts says:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.1
Our “godless schools,” so far as they are “godless,” however made so, cannot be defended on American principles. We must retake those surrendered guns and reoccupy the only defensible position for an American Christian nation, namely, that our public schools shall again teach Christian morals in an unsectarian manner as a necessary basis of social security and good citizenship. 1 AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.2
Recognizing some, at least, of the difficulties that would beset an attempt to carry out this suggestion, our author says:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.3
In these days of a more complex and more critical population, it might be wise in some cases to put in place of the extemporaneous freedom of former years and the timid secularity of recent times, carefully prepared schedules of Bible readings and text-books of morals from which controverted points had been excluded, so far as practicable, by mutual agreement of Protestant and Roman Catholic authorities, six-sevenths of whose creeds, as we shall show, is “common Christianity” that can be taught in unison for six days per week, leaving the sabbath for sectarian teaching in the case of these who do not believe that even then it is better to teach the “common Christianity.” 2 AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.4
“Such a plan is practicable,” adds Dr. Crafts, “for it is practiced.” He then cites “the case of the Pennsylvania Reform School at Morganza, where our ‘common Christianity,’ with special reference to Christian morals, has been taught daily to the whole school for many years by Protestant teachers from an unsectarian Christian text book, written for this purpose by a Roman Catholic priest, Father Canevan, of Pittsburg; a text book which has been approved by his bishop, approved also by a Presbyterian editor 3 on the board of the management and by other Protestants.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.5
This wonderful book is entitled, “Easy Lessons in Christian Doctrine,” and the reader will be interested to know just what it teaches. This very proper curiosity we shall endeavor to gratify sufficiently to indicate the character of the book and to illustrate fairly the practical workings of the system recommended by the author of “Practical Christian Sociology.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.6
“Easy Lessons in Christian Doctrine” is a pamphlet of fifty-three pages, four by five and one-half inches in size, in two parts. Part I., thirty-two pages, is made up of twenty-three lessons in Roman Catholic doctrine, concerning creation, the trinity, the fall, the redemption, the commandments, and the judgment. Part II. is a short history of the Christian religion reaching from creation to the day of Pentecost. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.7
We cannot notice each lesson in detail, but shall quote sufficient to prove our statement that the lessons are lessons in Roman Catholic doctrine. The phraseology throughout betrays a Roman Catholic writer, one who has been instructed in Roman Catholic religious books. For instance, the word “justice” is used where the King James version always uses “righteousness;” “Sem” where the King James uses “Shem;” “Pasch” where the King James always uses “Passover.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.8
But we will let the book speak for itself. The following passage upon the subject of sins, distinctly sets forth the Roman Catholic doctrine of mortal and venial sins, but here this papal doctrine is made “easy” by calling them “grievous offenses” and “small offenses“:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.9
Ques. Are all actual sins equally great? AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.10
Ans. No; all sins are not equally great; there are grievous offenses against the law of God, and there are also small offenses against the law of God. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.11
Q. What are the effects of grievous offenses against the law of God? AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.12
A. Grievous offenses against the law of God kill the soul, by depriving it of the true spiritual life of grace, and make it liable to eternal punishment in hell. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.13
Q. What are the effects of small offenses against the law of God? AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.14
A. Grievous offenses against the law of God kill the soul, by depriving it of the true spiritual life of grace, and make it liable to eternal punishment in hell. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.15
Q. What are the effects of small offenses against the law of God? AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.16
A. Small offenses against the law of God do not rob the soul of the true spiritual life of grace; but they hurt the soul by lessening its love for God, and by disposing to great sins. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.17
Q. Is it a great misfortune to fall into grievous sin? AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.18
A. It is the greatest of all misfortunes. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.19
The next thing after this piece of papal doctrine is to find a purgatory for those souls who are “hurt” by the small misfortune of “small offenses” against the law of God; and this is done in the following “easy” lesson:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.20
Ques. Did Christ’s soul descend into the hell of the damned? AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.21
Ans. The hell into which Christ’s soul descended was not the hell of the damned, but a place or state of rest. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.22
Q. Who were in this place of rest? AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.23
A. The souls of the just who died before Christ. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.24
Q. Why did Christ descend into this place? AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.25
A. To announce to those spirits that were in prison the joyful tidings of their redemption. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.26
Q. When did the souls of the just who died before Christ go to heaven? AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.27
A. When Christ ascended into heaven. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.28
Q. Where was Christ’s body while his soul was in limbo, or the place of rest? AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.29
A. In the sepulcher, or grave. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.30
This limbo is an “easy” word for the latin limbus partum, and is essentially the Roman Catholic purgatory. This indeed is evident from the doctrine of the whole lesson. How the editor of the Presbyterian Banner or even the author of “Practical Christian Sociology” could indorse such teaching is more than we can explain. The fact that they do, shows to what lengths “Protestants” are willing to go in this matter. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.31
Lesson three of Part II. sets forth the Roman Catholic doctrine of Genesis 3:15, which, according to to [sic.] the Catholic Bible, reads as follows:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.32
I will be enmities between thee and the woman and thy seed and her seed. She shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. AMS January 30, 1896, page 34.33
Having thus, by a mistranslation, artfully eliminated Christ, the seed, from the latter part of this text, this “easy” lesson giving his work and honor to another, continues:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.1
Ques. How was a Redeemer promised? AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.2
Ans. To show how hateful sin was to him, God cursed the serpent which had deceived Eve, condemning him to crawl upon the ground and to eat the dust; besides, he said enmity should exist between the serpent and the woman, but in the end the woman would crush his head. AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.3
Of course it is but a step from this to the papal assumption that the church is the woman which is to crush the serpent’s head by dominating the world through her visible head, the pope of Rome. And this the author of “Practical Christian Sociology” calls teaching “Christian morals in an unsectarian manner”! AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.4
Nor is this all. Lesson five of Part II. easily inculcates the “easy lesson” of the papal unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, as follows:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.5
Ques. What were the principal religious rites and festivals of the Mosaic law? AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.6
Ans. The principal religious rites of the law given to Moses were sacrifices offered to God; they were either bloody, in which were offered heifers, and sheep, and goats, and doves; or unbloody, in which were offered cakes, and unleavened bread, and wine. AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.7
It is not a matter of surprise that a Roman Catholic bishop should indorse this book, but that the author of “Practical Christian Sociology” and the editor of the Presbyterian Banner and “other Protestants” should indorse it show how far the so-called Protestant profession has become like the Roman Catholic. When Roman Catholics and Protestants unite, it is only by surrender on the part of the latter. Roman Catholicism has not abated one jot of her claims nor modified in one tittle her doctrine; and the only way it is possible for Roman Catholics and Protestants ever to unite is by the Protestants becoming Roman Catholic, if not in name at least in doctrine and methods. Rome is willing that the Bible should be taught in the public schools if she is permitted to put her gloss upon it; she is even anxious that “Christian morals” should be taught if only she prepares the “easy” lessons. She is willing that all the so-called “moral” and “Christian” reforms should receive aid from the State either in money or influence, if she is allowed to so color them that they contribute directly or indirectly to her upbuilding, but not otherwise. “Rome never changes.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.8
But how far would the author of “Practical Christian Sociology” carry this matter of Christian instruction in the public schools? Let the book itself answer the question:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.9
“A Christian nation,” may consistently insist “with malice toward none and charity for all,” that the public schools of a “Christian nation” shall teach an authoritative Christian morality. 4 AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.10
But this still leaves unanswered the question how far shall this teaching go? Again we quote:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.11
Compulsory hygienic education, “with special reference to alcoholics and narcotics,” shows that health and strength as well as morals and religion call for total abstinence not only from alcoholic beverages but also from tobacco, and the impurity which both provoke and promote. And the hygienic necessity of sabbath rest also to the best health and longest life is soon to be added in connection with Dr. A. Haegler’s chart. AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.12
Dr. Haegler calls attention to the chemical facts of expenditure and repair in constituents of the blood, as demonstrated by Pillerkofer and Voit, who showed that the nightly rest after the day’s work did not afford a complete recuperation of the vital forces and was insufficient to keep the mind and body in tone; but that, if this reparation is not supplemented by an occasional longer period of rest, the system is subjected to a gradual falling in pitch. 5 AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.13
Here stands revealed the goal that “Practical Christian Sociologists” would reach; they would teach a “morality” that included the religious observance of Sunday, for in his book, “The Sabbath for Man,” Dr. Crafts insists that a purely civil rest is not sufficient. “Take the religion out,” says he, “and you take the rest out.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.14
And in giving this “instruction” Dr. A. Haegler’s utterly misleading chart is to be used? AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.15
It is true that abstinence from labor one day in seven, if it is not accompanied with dissipation, gives physical rest, but rest is not the great object of the Sabbath, and to so teach children is monstrously wicked. Of course Sunday is not the Sabbath, but the scheme to teach “an authoritatively Christian morality” means the teaching of the children that Sunday is the Sabbath and that the great object of the Sabbath is rest. As well might they teach that baptism is for the putting away of the filth of the flesh! AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.16
It is not true that the object of the Sabbath is physical rest. People who keep no sabbath live quite as long and enjoy quite as good health, other things being equal, as do those who have the regular weekly rest. March 11, 1890, the writer heard Bishop Andrews, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who had just returned from China, say: “In China they have no septennial division of time, no weekly rest day, merely annual festivals. They work right along all the time with no day of rest as such; yet they live to a very advanced age. This fact has led one of the most careful thinkers who has ever been sent as missionary to China, to raise a serious question whether the great purpose of the Sabbath is not for worship and communion with the other world.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.17
“The Sabbath was made for man,” but not alone nor even primarily for his physical necessities. “Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.” 6 But “Practical Christian Sociology” proposes to teach the children of all the people at public expense that the great object of the Sabbath is physical rest, and to impress this falsehood upon their minds by means of an utterly misleading chart. As we have intimated more than once in the past, such sociology may be practical but it is not Christian. AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.18
“Some ‘Facts’ Well Overlooked” American Sentinel 11, 5, pp. 35, 36.
THE Christian Statesman, in its issue of January 11, discourses upon “The Logic of Christianity,” and presents some strange “facts” which it says should not have been overlooked by people professing to be Christians, concerning their responsibility as citizens under this Government. AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.1
“The mission of Christianity in the world,” it says, “is not fully understood by a large number of church members. They overlook the fact that by the gospel of the kingdom the world is to be transformed, and the kingdoms of this world made the kingdoms of our Lord.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.2
But why has this “fact” been overlooked by Christian people? Is it not because the Scriptures nowhere teach it? For the teaching of Scripture on this point is that when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord, they will be dashed in pieces by him, and broken “like a potter’s vessel.” (See Psalm 2:8, 9; Daniel 2:34, 35, 44, 45; Revelation 11:15, 18; 19:19-21.) This clearly shows that these kingdoms will not be reconciled to him by the gospel. When God’s kingdom is to be set up on the earth, every earthly kingdom must first be swept away, because it is utterly impossible to incorporate earthly governments into the kingdom of Christ. But all those individuals will be saved who through faith have been created new in Christ. An individual can, by the power of God, be “born again,” and thus fitted for the kingdom of God; but to speak of a civil government as being “born again” is manifestly absurd. AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.3
The Statesman argues that because an individual professor of Christianity “must find a place in his creed for God as supreme, for Christ as Saviour, ... and for the Bible as the rule of life,” and because the Church must proclaim her belief in these truths, therefore the nation ought to do the same; in other words, that the character of a government is to be determined by the same test which determines the character of an individual or a family or a church. But the party who talk about “Christian” governments and think to make this one of them by the proposed “Christian amendment” to the Constitution, persistently refuse to recognize the plain fact that civil government is not a moral entity. No comparison can be made between it and an individual, a family, or a church, on moral grounds. The proper object of human existence in this world is the glory of God; but the proper purpose of civil government is the protection of human rights, and each of them is good in character according as each fulfills the purpose of its existence. AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.4
To employ the same test of character for a civil government that is proper for an individual, would lead to strange conclusions. For example, no individual is good, according to the Bible standard, who will not forgive those who injure him. No matter if they trespass against him repeatedly, he is still to forgive, even as God, whose child (if a Christian) he claims to be, forgives those who trespass against him. He must pray, “Forgive us our trespasses, even as we forgive those that trespass against us.” Must the State, therefore, in order to be good, forgive its criminals, provided, they say, I repent, and ask to be forgiven? Would that be a good government under which evil characters might commit crime day after day and escape by merely asking to be pardoned? Would not such a government, on the contrary, be one of the worst imaginable? Certainly it would; and this illustrates the absurdity of the idea that a government is not a good one unless it conforms to the moral standard set up for individuals. AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.5
We repeat, civil government is not and from its very nature cannot be a moral entity. Individuals can delegate power to their representatives, but they cannot delegate morality. One individual cannot be the moral representative of others. AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.6
The Christian Statesman says that infidel’s surpass some Christians in their power of discernment” upon this subject, and cites in evidence some words of Mr. Samuel Putnam, as follows:— AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.7
“It is the impression of some that a Supreme Court decision, or an act of Congress, or of the President, can make this a Christian State. But this is impossible. Nothing can make this a Christian State except the Constitution. Ten thousand decisions of the Supreme Court, or ten thousand acts of Congress or of the President, can’t make this a Christian State.” “The Constitution is a secular Constitution; and nothing can make it a Christian Constitution save the Constitution itself. God himself can’t get into the Constitution except the American people put him in there by constitutional amendment.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 35.8
It does not speak well for the Statesman party that they have to take up the logic of infidels respecting Christianity, rather than that of persons who have experienced Christianity and know what it is. It is very true that no decision of the Supreme Court, or act of Congress, or of the President, can make this a Christian nation, any more than a vote of the Presbyterian General Assembly in favor of the doctrine of infant damnation could send infants to the place of torment. And it is equally true that this Government cannot be made Christian by an amendment to the Constitution, nor can the Constitution itself be Christianized by any such means. The Constitution is not “secular” in the sense of being opposed to God and Christianity, but only in the sense of being, from the nature of the purpose it is designed to serve, necessarily outside the sphere of moral belief and action. The idea that God can be “put into” the Constitution by a vote and a change in its wording may be harmonious with the infidel conception of God, but is nevertheless little short of blasphemy. AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.1
How is an individual Christianized? Jesus tells us it is by being “born again.” “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:3-5. It is left for these would-be reformers to discover a new way of becoming Christian; namely, by a vote of the people. Or do they think that the State will thus be “born again” “of water and of the Spirit,” thus to become fitted for eternal existence in the kingdom of God? AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.2
We are glad that the illustrious men who framed the Constitution and reared the fabric of our commonwealth, overlooked the “facts” which the “Christian amendment” party are trying to force their descendants to recognize. AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.3
“Christianity and Citizenship” American Sentinel 11, 5, p. 36.
SOME pertinent questions which have arisen in the discussion of this subject are considered in the Christian Work, of January 16, by President Merrill Gates, of Amherst College. The attitude of “a few very earnest and well-meaning persons,” who affirm “that in proportion as a man is interested in the building up of the Church of Christ, in just that proportion he will hold aloof as far as possible from all civic and political relations” is discussed, together with the oft-quoted words, of our Saviour, “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s;” and the conclusion if drawn that “the whole spirit of the teaching of Christ is directly against the ignoring or the evasion of this responsibility divinely laid upon each citizen to see to it, so far as in him lies, that in proportion as the Spirit of Christ dwells in him, the life of the community in which he lives shall be cleaner, more law-abiding and nobler.” AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.1
This conclusion touches a point which needs to be carefully considered in the light of both reason and revelation, if we would avoid confusion and error. AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.2
The vital question is, By what means is the Christian to discharge this responsibility to elevate the community in which he lives? There can be no doubt that the responsibility exists; but the methods advocated by some for accomplishing the desired result are open to serious question. AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.3
In the first place, it should be noted that no one who really possesses the Spirit of Christ will be inclined to ignore or evade this responsibility. The whole tendency of the life of Christ on earth was to elevate, ennoble, make more law-abiding and peaceful, the community which was favored with his presence. No person ever accomplished more in this direction than did he; and as he did, so also his professed disciples may and should do. “He that believeth on me,” said Jesus, “the works that I do shall he do also.” John 14:12. The Spirit of Christ never lies dormant in any person. If it is possessed at all, it will control the life of its possessor in harmony with the will of God. And he who walks not as Christ walked, gives evidence by his life that the Spirit of Christ is not in him. AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.4
It is not law, nor the enforcement of law, that preserves order and peace in this world, so much as it is the love of order and peace which is implanted in the minds of the vast majority of the people. In other words, the people generally, in this country at least, prefer to live peaceably and orderly rather than to lead the lives of criminals. And this natural preference is due to the restraining influences of the Spirit of Christ, which are felt more or less fully in every heart. Were the Spirit of Christ withdrawn from the earth, law would be a mockery, and enforcement of law a meaningless phrase. AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.5
Yet civil government, with its legislative, judicial, and executive departments, is a necessity in this world, and Christians are bound to conduct themselves consistently with its proper maintenance. “The powers that be are ordained of God,” and all earthly power that is exercised to secure justice and preserve human right, should have the support of every lover of justice and humanity. They should refuse to support only such exercise of civil power as is contrary to right, and a perversion of the power ordained of God. AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.6
No universal rule can, however, be laid down defining the duty of individuals in this respect. What course of action will, in any particular case, meet the requirements of truth and justice, is to be determined by an enlightened and conscientious judgment from the circumstances of the situation. The Christian has before him not only his own rights and those of others like himself, but the rights of God,—His right to be properly represented before his creatures here, and to have their loving service throughout all ages. The Christian’s outlook is a vastly wider one than that of her men, and considerations drawn from it must often oblige him to refuse support to things which seem quite proper from a narrower point of view. AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.7
The danger of the prevailing idea of Christian citizenship lies in the common tendency to exercise power, when it is secured, not simply for the maintenance of human rights, but for the advancement—as it is deemed—of Christian customs and institutions. The plea that such institutions should have the support of legislation is a very plausible one, and appeals strongly to the uninstructed mind. The project of making Christianity, in fact as well as in name, the “common law of the land,” seems most laudable to very many who do not know or do not stop to consider that Christianity is a life, and not a form of words. We would that all our legislators, judges, and executives were Christians both in name and in truth. But were they such, it would not follow that we would have laws upholding and enforcing religious doctrines. On the contrary, this is just what we would not have; but every person would be left free to be religious or irreligious, as his own judgment might determine; for the Christian spirit is the spirit of love, and Christian teaching is that all persons must be drawn to God and Christianity by love, or not at all. AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.8
In no way can we do more for the good of the community in which we may live than by setting before it the example of a life in which is manifested the power of God unto salvation. This we should do, and we should advocate and support such exercise of the civil power as God has ordained for the preservation of God-given rights. AMS January 30, 1896, page 36.9
“Back Page” American Sentinel 11, 5, p. 40.
WE are told by Sunday-law advocates that God’s words, “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work,” mean that no work is to be done on the first day of the week, or that one day out of seven is to be observed as a day of rest; but the same persons will not allow any such liberty of interpretation with respect to their man-made sabbath “law.” That means a definite, particular day of the week every time. Thus they honor the statute of man above the law of God. AMS January 30, 1896, page 40.1
A GREAT many people justify Sunday laws upon the ground of physical necessity. Such legislation is said to be a proper exercise of the police power of the State for the preservation of health, etc. The fragile texture of this claim becomes apparent when we consider what class of men are calling for such laws. Are they the doctors, the scientists, the boards of public health, the man most familiar with the facts of physical science and mans’ physical needs? No; they are the preachers. Were the clergymen to withdraw from the ranks of the Sunday-law agitators, there would be scarce a corporal’s guard left. Yet we are asked to believe that Sunday legislation is not sought for religious reasons, but simply to meet a pressing exigency created by man’s physical needs, which they have discovered, and which the physicians, scientists, and statesmen have somehow overlooked. AMS January 30, 1896, page 40.2
IT is well to bear in mind that the only true liberty which anybody can possibly have is liberty in Christ. “He that committeth sin is the servant of sin;” and it is only because of the indifference of the Spirit of Christ in the world that men recognize one another’s rights even to the extent that they do, so that even those who do not realize it are indebted to Christ for the physical liberty they enjoy. AMS January 30, 1896, page 40.3