The American Sentinel 12
June 3, 1897
“Separation of Church and State” American Sentinel 12, 22, p. 338.
IN the beginnings of Egypt the same course was followed as in the beginnings of Babylon and Assyria. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.1
At first they knew the one true God; and he was their only King, their only Ruler. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.2
But they did not like to retain God in their knowledge; and therefore they went into idolatry, and from idolatry into monarchy. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.3
The Egyptian records state that the first rulers of Egypt were the gods; after them the demigods; and after these the kings. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.4
In Egypt, however, the king was not content, as in Assyria, to call himself the viceroy of his god; he claimed to be the very embodiment of the god itself—the god was personated in the king; from him, it was declared, the people “received the breath of their nostrils;” he was “the giver of life.” AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.5
And thus, though Nimrod was the first man to establish monarchical authority and assume the kingly title and crown, yet in Egypt his example was followed to the greatest lengths, as Egypt was undoubtedly the most idolatrous nation that ever was on the earth. There apostasy of every kind culminated: so that throughout the Bible the one word “Egypt” symbolizes everything that is contrary to God. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.6
When the power of monarchy had filled the Mesopotamian plain, God called Abraham out of that country into the land of Canaan, where he could be free, and thus made a separation of Church and State, and preached the same to all people. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.7
But in process of time, and by Egypt, the power of monarchy was spread over all countries, from Ethiopia to Ararat and central Asia. Then, as his people were obliged to live under the power of monarchy anyhow, the Lord put them where they could do the most possible good—he placed them at the very seat of the world’s empire, in Egypt itself. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.8
And there, through all the time of the supremacy of the Egyptian Empire, with Joseph and Moses beside the throne, and Israel amongst the people, of Egypt, God held before all nations the knowledge of Himself. And as soon as the time came when the Egyptian empire must fall, God would place his people once more in Canaan, the pivot of the highways of the nations. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.9
To this end there must be again taught to the world the separation of religion and the State, the separation of Church and State. God’s people must be called out of Egypt, in order that they and all the nations might be instructed in the great principles of the gospel, of supreme allegiance to God, of the separation of religion and the State, of church and country. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.10
Moses understood this, and therefore he “refused to be called the son of Pharoah’s daughter.” Moses was the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Pharaoh’s daughter was Pharaoh’s chief wife, and queen. Moses, therefore, by the most complete claim, was heir apparent to the throne of Egypt. And as the king was then more than eighty years old, it could be but a little while till Moses would possess and throne of Egypt. The throne of Egypt was at that time the throne of the world; for the power of Egypt then ruled the world. It was the supreme State, the governing empire over all. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.11
For Moses to refuse to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter was therefore to renounce the throne of Egypt. To renounce the throne of Egypt was to renounce the power of empire. It was definitely to disconnect from the State. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.12
At that time Moses was called to have charge over “the house of God, which is the church of the living God.” It was in obedience to this call that he renounced the throne of Egypt and the power of empire. It was because of this that he definitely disconnected himself from the State. And in recording it, God designed to teach all people that conformity to his will means the separation of Church and State; that it means the renunciation of the throne and the power of earthly empire—the total separation of religion and the State. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.13
And it was through the faith of Christ that Moses did all this. It was “through faith” that “Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt.” AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.14
Therefore, from that day to this, it has been made plain to all people that faith in God, the faith of Jesus Christ, the original principle of the gospel and of the church, means the absolute separation of Church and State; the renunciation of the throne and power of earthly dominion; the total separation of religion and the State. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.15
And this is what faith in God, the faith of Jesus Christ, the fundamental principle of the gospel and of the church, means to all people in the world to-day. AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.16
“Religion and Democracy” American Sentinel 12, 22, pp. 338, 339.
AT a banquet of the Chamber of Commerce, of Cleveland, Ohio, given May 13, the chief oratorical feature was a speech by Archbishop Ireland, on the subject of “The Sure Foundation of a True Citizenship.” Among his utterances on this occasion worthy of note as showing the drift of papal teaching upon this important topic, are the following: “Patriotism is never so potent as when it is identified with religion.” “The crisis for democracy will come when comes the crisis for religion.” “The enemies of religion are the enemies of country and democracy.” AMS June 3, 1897, page 338.17
What religion? it might be well to query in reply. “There be lords many and gods many,” and there are religions many, and the archbishop’s religion is one of them. But there is only one gospel—one revelation of God to mankind through Jesus Christ. And this cannot be identified with “patriotism;” and mere religion can be so identified, and we may not uncharitably infer that Archbishop Ireland hopes to see his own religion so identified. But what a state of things will exist in this erstwhile “land of the free,” when to be irreligious, or to fail to conform to the prevailing religion, will be counted unpatriotic, and subject the nonconformist to the charge of being an enemy “of country and of democracy”! AMS June 3, 1897, page 339.1
“The ‘Trust’ Evil Illustrated” American Sentinel 12, 22, p. 339.
THE spectacle of the thousands of employés of garment manufacturers on strike in New York City, while their wives and children starve in their cheerless homes, affords, among other things, an illustration of the workings of the “labor trust.” There is truth in the remark made by ex-Senator Edmunds: “They may talk about our honest men with wives and families to support who are willing to work for one and two dollars a day, but they can’t get it,—why? Because their union, or their trust, won’t allow them. The standard is set for them, and if they don’t wait and starve their families until they reach that standard they can’t get work anywhere.” AMS June 3, 1897, page 339.1
Sad, indeed, is the condition to which industry has been reduced by the selfishness of man toward his fellows. The “labor trust” represents a desperate effort by the workingmen to interpose an effectual resistance to the relentless power which from some higher stratum of society is steadily forcing them and those dependent on their earnings, beneath the surface of a respectable existence. In reply to ex-Senator Edmunds a New York journal says:— AMS June 3, 1897, page 339.2
“If he will go over to the East Side of New York, look into Walhalla Hall, or make a trip through the teeming tenements, he will gain some idea of a standard of wages and the standard of living which has resulted from free competition in labor. He will find tailors, to the number of tens of thousands, reinforcing their labor unions and saying to each other. ‘We will starve if need be, we and our wives and our babies, but we will not return again to the practice of bidding against each other for work at starvation wages.’ If he will look into the conditions which have caused the tailors’ strike, he will find them bred of exactly the procedure which he would substitute for that of organized labor. One family, either out of the union or indifferent to its rules, agrees to work for a certain contractor for less than the union rates. Presently that contractor underbids his fellows. They investigate, discover the cause, and meet the unfair competition by cutting down the pay of their workers. The process is repeated until the wages become barely sufficient to support the workers, nor does it always stop there, for there are not infrequently some who will work for less than a living wage, supplementing it by vicious or dishonest practices. In every badly organized trade this process goes on.” AMS June 3, 1897, page 339.3
Nevertheless the “labor trust,” at its best, is an evil, however necessary it may seem to be. Man was not designed by his Creator to maintain his existence by means of the trust. To do this is to destroy his own individuality. God would have men learn the great truth that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” He would have men learn to put their dependence upon Him as the author and preserver of life, rather than upon a human organization. AMS June 3, 1897, page 339.4
Many remedies are proposed for this deplorable condition of affairs, but the Christian student knows that the only effective remedy is righteousness. And therefore the counsel of God’s word to those who experience the evils of this situation is, “Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.” See James 5:1-7. Christ is coming the second time, in “power and great glory,” to set up righteousness in the earth, by destroying sin and sinners out of it. This is the true hope for the toiling, groaning myriads of old earth to-day. AMS June 3, 1897, page 339.5
“‘Not by Might Nor by Power’” American Sentinel 12, 22, pp. 339, 340.
THE Lord does not carry on his work in the earth by might or by power. That is, he does not work by those agencies which appear most mighty and powerful in the eyes of man. “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” Zechariah 4:6. AMS June 3, 1897, page 339.1
In this day we see religious organizations grasping for power. We see the church associations—the Society of Christian Endeavor, the Epworth League, etc., holding conventions and discussing, among other things, what they can do to control elections and put good men into public office. Their hopes in this regard are based upon the millions enrolled in their membership. But what will all this might and power avail in the work of the Lord? Suppose they should get complete control of the Government—what good would it do them or the cause which they profess to represent? What is the use of might and power when the Lord does not work by that means? AMS June 3, 1897, page 339.2
Have they forgotten the record of the experience of the prophet Elijah at Mount Horeb? 1 Kings 19:9-13. The prophet was told to “Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind was an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire a still small voice.” And the Lord was in that voice, and that voice set in motion again the work of the Lord which had been suspended by the prophet’s flight from Jezreel. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” AMS June 3, 1897, page 339.3
Do these religious organizations aim to produce a cyclone or an earthquake in the Government? Evidently, they hope to do something of the sort. But what good would it accomplish if they should? The Lord would not be in it. He would not be in it even were they able to duplicate all the awesome exhibitions of might and power displayed at Horeb before Elijah. The Lord is yet in the “still small voice,” which is the voice of His Spirit. AMS June 3, 1897, page 340.1
“O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end! How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight!” “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down,” not by the assault of battering rams and the arms of the encompassing host. By faith the servants of God in old time “turned to flight the armies of the aliens.” Hebrews 11:30-34. By faith the work of God moves forward in the earth to-day. The world will be deceived by exhibitions of might and power; but by the Word of the Lord his people know that his work is not by might nor by power, but by the “still small voice” of his Spirit. AMS June 3, 1897, page 340.2
“The Lord’s Day and Liberty” American Sentinel 12, 22, p. 340.
A COMMON view of the question of securing Sabbath observance is expressed in the following from the Outlook of April 24:— AMS June 3, 1897, page 340.1
“The question of Sunday observance is by no means a simple one. There are elements in the problem which make it difficult of solution. It is, perhaps, more difficult in this country than in any other because the population is so heterogeneous. In the old New England days Puritan ideals could be realized because the people were all of one class. The same may be said of Scotland. But our population is composed of representatives of many nationalities and of various phases of faith. Simple justice seems to make it imperative that the preferences of differing people should be recognized. How liberty may be granted and yet the Lord’s Day preserved is a question not easy to answer.” AMS June 3, 1897, page 340.2
All this applies to Sunday observance; but none of the facts set forth in this quotation interfere with the securing of Sabbath observance, for the simple reason that Sabbath observance is a part of the Christian life, which is secured through faith in Christ; and it makes no difference how heterogenous the population is, they are all alike susceptible to the grace of God. Nor do the “preferences” of the people affect the question; for when a person is a Christian, he will prefer to keep the Sabbath in just the way that God has commanded. AMS June 3, 1897, page 340.3
From the gospel standpoint, there can be no possible antagonism between liberty and the keeping of the Sabbath; for the Sabbath commandment is a part of the “perfect law of liberty” itself. See James 2:11, 12. “How liberty may be granted and the Lord’s day preserved” is therefore a question which can never arise under the provisions of the gospel. God is the author of both liberty and the Lord’s day, and he has fixed their relation to each other; and the only thing that his creatures here need to do is to leave the matter just as he has arranged it. AMS June 3, 1897, page 340.4
If men would only do this, it would save them a world of trouble. AMS June 3, 1897, page 340.5