The American Sentinel 13
November 24, 1898
“Front Page” American Sentinel 13, 46, p. 725.
THE man-made Sabbath is upheld from beneath; the Lord’s Sabbath is sustained from above. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.1
IT is no more sinful to openly work on the Sabbath than to obey the law in the letter, while hating the spirit of it. No Sabbath keeping is truly such which is not prompted by love to its Author. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.2
CHURCH history is largely a warning to the church against going into politics. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.3
THEOLOGICAL dogmas are not made any more truthful, stable, or valuable by being embodied in the law of the land. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.4
IT is the business of Christians in this world to let their light shine by their good works, not to try to compel people to shine whose works are evil. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.5
“IN union there is strength,” does not apply to a union of church and state. An unhappy marriage is a source of great weakness to both parties. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.6
ALL immorality is sin; and the remedy for sin is not law, but the gospel. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.7
PEOPLE who attend properly to their own morals will have all they can do without trying to supervise the morals of their neighbors. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.8
SINNERS cannot be driven out of the pathway of sin. They must be led. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.9
RELIGIOUS error is always frantically calling for a law to support it, since it has no strength in itself. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.10
WHEN the church goes into politics, it is only politics, it is only to be expected that politicians will go into the church. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.11
THE sanctity of any Christian institution cannot be lost because people disregard it, or preserved by arresting and punishing people who refuse to observe it. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.12
THE political compass is altogether too changeable to be a safe instrument by which to steer the ship of Zion. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.13
[Inset.] THE CHURCH IN POLITICS—AMS IT MUST RESULT TO THE CHURCH. THE church is seemingly bent upon entering into politics, thinking that thus she can most surely and quickly attain to the long-sought goal of her desires, where righteousness will be established in the earth, and those conditions of peace and prosperity prevail which in fancy she has associated with the setting up of the kingdom of God. But it is the old deception by which the church of former times was lured upon the rocks of worldliness and utterly wrecked; and only the same result can follow now. Union with the civil power means disunion from the spiritual power of her Lord, and the consequent paralysis of her spiritual strength. Once caught in the currents of worldliness which flow so strongly toward the goal of political ambition, she will find herself powerless to stem the tide, and spiritual shipwreck will be the inevitable result. AMS November 24, 1898, page 725.14
“Predictions vs. History” American Sentinel 13, 46, p. 726.
TERRIBLE things will happen, say the advocates of “Christian citizenship,” if Christians keep aloof from politics. To this the answer is that terrible things have happened—the worst that ever darkened human history—because “Christians” went into politics. AMS November 24, 1898, page 726.1
For it was a religio-political union between Christianity (as represented by the church of Constantine’s day) and the state, in the person of the emperor, that set in motion the hideous machinery of religious persecution,—that ushered in the long and terrible period of massacre and torture worse than death, done in the name of religion; that spread a pall of blackness over all that was bright in human life, turned loose the worst passions of human depravity, and deluged the earth with human blood, regardless of age and sex. All this actually took place upon the earth, and continued for centuries, because “Christians” did not keep aloof from politics; because, in other words, they entered into the business of conducting the affairs of the state. AMS November 24, 1898, page 726.2
Constantine and the church both felt themselves in need of power. So Constantine gave his power as emperor to the church, in return for the power exercised by the church upon men through religion. A partnership was formed for the control of the affairs both of church and state,—a partnership in which ere long the church became the directing and controlling head. This was the church in politics; but the church could never have gone into politics if its members, as individuals, had refused to do so. AMS November 24, 1898, page 726.3
And all this was done by the church—by “Christians”—from a very pious motive. It was done in order that society might be reformed and elevated,—and more than this. It was done to usher in the kingdom of God. It was believed that this was accomplished, or speedily to be so, after Constantine had professed conversion to Christianity. When his mother sent him from Jerusalem some “nails of the true cross,” to be used as bridle bits for his war horse, it was counted a fulfillment of Zachariah’s prophecy that “what is upon the bridles of the horses shall be holiness unto the Lord.” And his act of appointing his sons and nephews to be sharers in the authority of the government, was associated with the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 7:16, “The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom.” AMS November 24, 1898, page 726.4
The church in her political measures has never lost sight of this vision of the setting up of the kingdom of God. From that day down to the present her efforts to shape the affairs and wield the authority of the civil government, have been with a view of advancing the fulfillment of the prophecies relating to this event. And this same idea and purpose crop out in much that is said to-day upon the necessity of active political work by members of the Christian church. The motive of such activity to-day is not a new one, but is in fact identical with that which inspired the “Christian” church in all the ages of her union with the state. AMS November 24, 1898, page 726.5
With this very good and very pious motive, Christians—in the early days of the church—went into politics, and history has recorded the terrible result. Then let the church—let Christians—keep out of politics. Then whatever disasters may come, if they will do this, there can be no possibility of a repetition of the worst calamity that ever brought ruin on church and state. AMS November 24, 1898, page 726.6
“What Will the Protestants Do?” American Sentinel 13, 46, pp. 726, 727.
LAMST week we gave the first half of the remarkable letter of the Washington correspondent of the Baltimore Daily American, as printed in that paper, October 15, 1898, declaring and justifying the fact that as the result of “numerous conferences with Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland” on the subject, “It is the determination of President McKinley that the Catholic churches [in Cuba] shall be kept open, and that public worship shall be amply provided for,” and “To this end sufficient money will be advanced by this Government to support the Catholic Church.” AMS November 24, 1898, page 726.1
It was stated by this correspondent that “this will only be regarded as a temporary loan and when law and order are fully reëstablished on the distracted island, the Catholic Church will be expected to maintain itself like every other church.” AMS November 24, 1898, page 726.2
Do you notice the trickery in this sentence last quoted?—It is said that this Government money “will be only a temporary loan.” Now the natural complement of that expression would be that “when law and order are fully reëstablished on the distracted island, the Catholic Church will be expected to pay back this money. But instead of that we find only the elusive statement that while this money “will be only a temporary loan” “till law and order can be reëstablished,” yet “when law and order are fully reëstablished” instead of paying back this “temporary loan” it is only that “the Catholic Church will be expected to maintain itself like every other church.” AMS November 24, 1898, page 726.3
Then whereabouts does the “temporary loan” come in? When the money is never to be paid back, how can there be about it any of the character of a loan either temporary or otherwise? The truth is of course that it is not, and is not expected to be, a temporary loan at all; but an eternal gift. AMS November 24, 1898, page 726.4
The correspondent next makes an open bid for all the other denominations in Cuba to sanction this unlawful course of the Catholic Church and President McKinley, by themselves doing the same thing. He says:— AMS November 24, 1898, page 727.1
“Such free Protestant churches as exist in Cuba are supported either by contributions of their congregations or by the mission funds of their respective denominations. At the same time, if a demand were made on this Government that the same favors be extended to Protestant churches and clergymen in Cuba that it is intended to extend towards the Catholics, that is to say, undertake the entire responsibility for their support, it is assumed that this Government could not consistently refuse to do so.” AMS November 24, 1898, page 727.2
This is an attempt to play again upon the Protestant churches, the identical trick that was played upon them by the Catholic Church, in connection with the Indian schools, in the first year of Mr. Cleveland’s presidency, by which fourteen “Protestant” churches and the United States Government were entrapped; and from which the Government has not yet been able to free itself. AMS November 24, 1898, page 727.3
It is true that if this demand were made by the Protestants the “Government could not consistently refuse,” since the Government is doing all this for the Catholic Church. And more than this, the Government cannot consistently do this for the Catholic Church without doing the same for all the Protestant churches. The Catholic managers of this scheme know this full well, and therefore this shrewd suggestion is made to the Protestants, that they may again be entrapped and so hide the inconsistency of governmental support of the Catholic Church. Will the Protestants of the land repudiate this designing suggestion, expose this evil scheme, and demand that the United States Government shall maintain the only lawful as well as the only consistent attitude—that of absolutely refusing to furnish a single cent or cent’s worth of support to the Catholic Church, or any other church; or to the “priests and high church dignitaries” of the Catholic Church, or the ministers of any other church, in Cuba or anywhere else? If the Protestants of the land will not do this, why will they not? AMS November 24, 1898, page 727.4
That correspondent suggests that the Protestant churches and clergymen in Cuba “demand” that the United States Government extend to them “the same favors that it is intended to extend toward the Catholics.” This is also intensely suggestive that the Catholics got these favors upon “demand.” The rest of this remarkable letter shows the basis of this demand of the Catholics. We have no space for it this week, and must therefore postpone the analysis of that till next week. However, from a careful study of it, we are prepared to say that for cool, essential deviltry it must bear the palm. AMS November 24, 1898, page 727.5
Meantime let all bear in mind that so far this Washington correspondent makes plain, that “It is the determination of President McKinley that the Catholic churches [in Cuba] shall be kept opne, and that public worship shall be amply provided for;” that “To this end sufficient money will be advanced by this Government to support the Catholic Church;” and that this means that the Government “undertakes the entire responsibility” for its support. AMS November 24, 1898, page 727.6
A. T. J.
“Religion vs. Rights” American Sentinel 13, 46, pp. 728, 729.
THE view which some good people take of their moral responsibilities in connection with the affairs of their neighbors, is well illustrated by the following which appears in the correspondence column of the Defender. This journal is the organ of Sunday enforcement in New England, and has been sending out through that section extracts from the Sunday laws of the New England states; and in reply once recipient writes:— AMS November 24, 1898, page 728.1
“I received your extracts from the Sunday law. We have a grocer and provision dealer, who persists in keeping open his store on the Sabbath. The day passes very rarely when he does not have from three to six customers, and often more. Some of the children from ten to fifteen years old, I have seen repeatedly come from the store with groceries or meat. Sometimes on returning from prayer-meeting I have counted four or five young boys purchasing candy and cigars. AMS November 24, 1898, page 728.2
“I have placed a copy of the Sunday laws where he could not fail to see it; but the Sabbath following, the store was opened as before. AMS November 24, 1898, page 728.3
“I have no ill-feeling against the man. He is my neighbor, I would not injure him. But I do not think it is right or consistent for me as a Christian to allow him to injure the mind of his own children and mine.” AMS November 24, 1898, page 728.4
The last sentence contains the kernel of the argument. The writer, being a Christian, feels that it would be wrong for him to allow the minds of the children and the morals of the community to be injured by non-Christian practices. Whether keeping open store on Sunday is an injury to any person or not, is purely a religious question; and he views it in the affirmative not because he is a man asserting the rights of created beings as such, but because he is a professor of religion. Because he has chosen to profess religion, other people are to be restricted in their actions by the law of the land. This is what his view, simply analyzed, amounts to. AMS November 24, 1898, page 728.5
But human liberties rest on no such narrow basis; they cannot thus be subjected to the human will. They rest upon the broad ground of the common inalienable rights shared by all mankind alike, irrespective of religious belief or variations of personal condition. And this is the only proper ground of civil legislation. Based upon narrower ground, as the believers in Sunday sacredness would have it, legislation can only invade the rights which it ought to protect. The field of religious belief is properly the field of moral suasion, and of that only. AMS November 24, 1898, page 728.6
“Wrong Ideas of Intolerance” American Sentinel 13, 46, pp. 733, 734.
THE Altoona Mirror (Pa.) reports that several men have been discharged by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for refusing to work on Sunday, the work being such as the men deemed unnecessary on that day. The Mirror says that if the report is true, “the company is taking a step dangerous to one of the cardinal principles of the American Constitution—freedom to follow the dictates of conscience; and some method of halting such interference with the right of the individual to do what he believes is right, should be sought at once.” AMS November 24, 1898, page 733.1
This expresses a common idea of religious intolerance, which people who are themselves religiously intolerant are more apt to hold than any others. The idea is, in short, that a business firm or corporation is intolerant if it does not make it easy for its employés to practice the principles of their religion. If it does anything to make the pathway of obedience to conscience less smooth than could be desired, it is said to be interfering with freedom of conscience, and opposing a fundamental principle of the Constitution. AMS November 24, 1898, page 733.2
At the same time it would be said by these people that a law which would compel observers of the seventh day to make a Sabbath day of Sunday, was not in any way intolerant, or opposed to the principles of free government. AMS November 24, 1898, page 734.1
A Sunday law lays the hand of force upon individuals of whatever occupation, and there is no escaping from it except by moving out of the country. There is nothing optional, or in the nature of a contract, about the operation of the law of the land. But work for a business corporation is an optional matter entirely. No person is compelled to work for a firm that will not accommodate its business regulations to the requirements of his religion. There is no involuntary servitude in this country outside of its penal institutions. Such a thing is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. AMS November 24, 1898, page 734.2
There is all the difference in the world between turning the power of the government against an individual to compel him to a certain line of conduct, and the enforcing of a business regulation which causes inconvenience to an individual on account of his religion, by a corporation which has no authority over him whatever outside of his relation to it as an employé. He may of course be thrown out of a job; but that is no interference with his rights as a individual of society. No individual has an inalienable right to a job. AMS November 24, 1898, page 734.3
People who turn from the observance of the first day of the week to the seventh day, are almost always, if employés, thrown out of work in their former positions; but they never think of complaining that their rights have been infringed thereby. AMS November 24, 1898, page 734.4
The Constitution does not undertake to say how corporations or any parties shall run their business; if it did it would be the laughing-stock of the nations, instead of commanding their respect. It deals only with the business of government; and its principles are violated by governmental interference with conscience and by nothing less. AMS November 24, 1898, page 734.5