The American Sentinel 12
The American Sentinel 12
1897
January 7, 1897
“Editorial” American Sentinel 12, 1, pp. 1-3.
TO-DAY the AMERICAN SENTINEL enters upon its twelfth year’s work. Every one who has watched the court of events during these eleven years, knows that the call for this work is more urgent than ever before. AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.1
When the first number of the AMERICAN SENTINEL was issued in January, 1886, who, however well informed, would have supposed that in only eleven years the movement to make the United States Government “Christian,” and the “Christian religion” a national thing, would have become so all-pervading and so popular as it is? AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.2
Then there was but one small sect that was working to this bad end. That movement was weak, and unpopular almost everywhere. All the principles and precepts of the Government were positively against it. AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.3
Now the movement is powerful and popular almost everywhere. And in spite of principle and precept, the Government of the United States has been turned bodily in its favor, with notice from the National Executive that “all will have to accept the situation,” and “face the music.” In more than one way that is a complete revolution. AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.4
WHAT IS THE SITUATION
Let us glance at original principles, that we may the better understand what the situation is, that “all will have to accept.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.5
Everybody knows that upon principle, and by express provision of the supreme law, the Government of the United States was established not only without any recognition of religion, but with the exclusion of religion, and specifically the Christian religion. This was done, too, because of respect to the Christian religion—“that the infinite Spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom, and purity, and power,” and that here there might be no encroachments upon the prerogatives of God. AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.6
Thus the Government of the United States was established in truth upon the Christian basis: in that its fundamental principles and supreme law were in exact harmony with the provisions announced by Jesus Christ with respect to the total separation that should be maintained between His religion and the jurisdiction of the State, between the kingdom of God and the governments of this world. AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.7
Thus America became to all the world “the classical land” of religious liberty. Therefore no step could ever be taken against this order of things in the Government, without attacking religious liberty: no thing could ever be done toward governmental recognition of the Christian religion, without being against the plain word of Christ, as well as against the fundamental principles and the supreme law of the Government itself. AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.8
This was all plain enough to all who cared to consider that the principles of Christ and the good of mankind were of more importance than their own opinions. And this is why the American people have been so slow to believe that there could be any danger to religious liberty, any danger of the establishment of a national religion, in this country; they would not believe that there could ever be enough people in this country who would become antichristian, to change the order of things in which the Government of the United States was founded, and which it represented to all the world. AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.9
By the year 1886, however, those who established the AMERICAN SENTINEL considered that there was sufficient indications of this approaching danger to justify the publishing of a paper which should be devoted to the maintenance of the principles of Christianity represented in the fundamental principles and the supreme law of the Government of the United States; while at the same time it should watch closely to detect and expose every motion that might be made toward securing the governmental recognition of religion. AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.10
In 1892, the Supreme Court of the nation committed the judicial department of the Government to the recognition of the “Christian religion” as a governmental thing by declaring that “organic utterances” and the “meaning” of the Constitution prove that “this is a Christian nation,” in accordance with original documents whose “purpose” was “the establishment of the Christian religion” in this country. And by another decision in 1895, the Court has shown that it adheres to this doctrine. AMS January 7, 1897, page 1.11
In 1892, also, Congress committed the legislative department of the Government not only to the recognition of the “Christian religion” as a governmental thing, but to the recognition of that particular phase of it that is represented in Sunday observance: and in 1893, by direct action, confirmed that which is had done in 1892. AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.1
In 1892, the President of the United States committed the executive department of the Goverment [sic.] to the recognition of the “Christian religion” as a governmental thing by approving the action of Congress. In addition to this, in 1896, the President of the United States, in a Thanksgiving proclamation, again committed the executive department of the Government, specifically, to the “Christian religion” as a governmental thing; and shortly afterward followed it up with the ominous declaration that “this is a Christian nation, and it is only a question of time when all will have to come to accept the situation.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.2
Now it is undeniable that these three departments—the legislative, the judicial, and the executive—are the Government of the United States. It is also undeniable that these three departments have, by repeated action, committed themselves to the recognition of the “Christian religion” as a governmental thing. It is therefore also undeniable that in spite of the plain words of Jesus Christ; and in spite of the fundamental principles and the supreme law of the nation; the Government of the United States has been dragged into the recognition of the “Christian religion;” and in the antichristian sense in which such a term is always used, has been made a “Christian government.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.3
What more could possibly be necessary to the accomplishment of such a thing? Was it essential that all three branches of the Government should take such step, in order that it might truly be said that the Government had done it? All three have definitely and intentionally taken such step. Was it essential that all three branches of the Government should by repeated action take such step, in order that it might truly be said that the Government had done it? All three, by repeated action, have done it. And, as though to put a climax to the whole scheme, the President gives notice not only that “this is a Christian nation,” but that it is only a question of time when “all will have to accept the situation,” and “face the music.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.4
Yet this is not to say that all has been done that will be done. Not by any means: for such evil tide once a-flowing, will not cease until it shall have overflown, reached even to the neck, and filled the breadth of the land. This is to say, however, what cannot be disproved, that the particular, the essential, thing of the recognition of a governmental national religion, has been accomplished by the Government of the United States. And when more shall have been done in this direction, it matters not what it may be, it is impossible for it to be the doing of any new thing. All that it can possibly be is but the enlarging and deepening of the thing that has already been done. AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.5
PECULIARITIES OF THE SITUATION
In view of all this that has certainly been done, it is remarkable how the great mass of the people of the United States do “accept the situation.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.6
Practically, the whole religious element of the nation accepts the situation, because it is glad to have it so. This element not only accepts the situation, but will do all in its power to emphasize President Cleveland’s pronunciamento that all “will have to accept” it. AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.7
The vast majority of those who are not confessed, of the religious element, tamely accept the situation because they do not believe that the issue is of sufficient importance to justify them in taking a course that will subject them to the sneers, the scoffs, and the ostracism: both business and social, that are so largely dealt out to all who choose to let it be known that they do not accept the situation. AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.8
Looking at the situation as it really is to-day, in contrast with the situation that our fathers created when they established the National Government and fixed the supreme law, a person is driven to the supposition that the great mass of the people of the United States to-day must think that our fathers made a great mistake when they carried on such a long and earnest contest against any governmental recognition of the “Christian religion.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.9
There is certainly a great mistake somewhere in the issue. If our fathers were right in establishing the Government and fixing the supreme law, with the express exclusion of any recognition of the Christian religion, then these men to-day cannot be right in dragging the whole Government into express recognition of the “Christian religion.” And if these men are right to-day in giving express governmental recognition to the “Christian religion,” then assuredly our fathers were wrong in expressly excluding the Christian religion from governmental recognition. AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.10
These two things cannot stand together. One of them must inevitably be wrong. And to “accept the situation” as it is to-day, and as the President of the United States says it “will have to” be accepted, is to say that our fathers were wrong in excluding the Christian religion from governmental recognition. But to say, or tacitly to admit, or “to accept the situation which argues, that our fathers were wrong in this, is to go further back than that point. The leading writer of the history of the United States has well said that the exclusion of religion from governmental recognition was “the logical consequence of either of the two great distinguishing principles of the Reformation, as well of justification by faith alone as the equality of all believers.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 2.11
To “accept the situation” then as it is to-day, is to allow that our fathers were wrong in creating the situation which they labored so hard to create. And to allow that they were wrong in this, is to argue that the Reformation, in its two great distinguishing principles, was wrong. And to do that is to occupy distinctly papal ground. AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.1
Nor yet is this all. We have shown that the situation which was created by our fathers in the total separation of the Christian religion from governmental recognition, is precisely the situation which the words of Christ declare that governments should occupy. And our fathers caused this Government to occupy that situation because of their respect for the words of Christ which demanded it; and because of deference to “the principles upon which the gospel was first propagated.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.2
To “accept the situation” then as it is to-day in the Government of the United States respecting the “Christian religion,” and which President Cleveland says “will have to” be accepted, is not only to allow that our fathers were wrong in excluding the Christian religion from governmental recognition, but it is also to argue that the principles upon which the gospel was first propagated, and even the very words of Christ, are wrong. And to do that, is to take the position of antichrist. AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.3
And that is the situation as it is to-day. AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.4
THE TWO SITUATIONS
There are then, in fact, two situations before the people of America to-day: First, the situation which was created by our fathers, when, by the fundamental principles and the supreme law of the Government, and according to the words of Christ and the principles upon which the gospel was first propagated, they excluded the Christian religion from governmental recognition. Secondly, the situation upon which the gospel was first propagated; and in spite of the fundamental principles and the supreme law of the Government; has been created to-day by the repeated governmental recognition of the “Christian religion.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.5
These are the two situations that are before the people of the United States to-day. The first is Christian, the second is antichristian. And “it is not a theory, but a condition, which confronts us.” For the President has plainly said, and there are multitudes who are ready, by whatever means, to make the saying effective, that “all will have to accept the situation” as it has been created lately—the antichristian situation. AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.6
Calmly and deliberately, and in the fear of Christ, we say that we will not “have to” accept the situation. We will not “have to” do it, simply because we will not do it. Not only this, but we are going to oppose it with all our might—not on the field of carnage nor with weapons of carnal warfare; but as our fathers did, in the field of public opinion, with “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,” “with sufferings and the Cross.” There are thousands of us now, and there are going to be thousands upon thousands of us before the contest is over, who will not “accept the situation,” who will not “face the music.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.7
Christ or antichrist—that is the question, Choose ye. As for us and our house, we choose Christ, the principles upon which the gospel was first propagated, the two great distinguishing principles of the Reformation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States. “Come with us and we will do thee good, for God has spoken good concerning Israel.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.8
IN the Christian Statesman, of December 19, 1896, Rev. J. N. Leiper, reporting the visit of the Anti-Saloon League to President Cleveland, a short time before, adds the following; and the italics are his own:— AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.9
“After this ceremony was over, the writer went back to the President, and, in the presence of a few others, said: ‘Mr. President, I most earnestly thank you for the recognition of your Saviour and mine in your Thanksgiving proclamation.’ I write this incident in order to give the President’s reply, which deserves to be remembered by all citizens. After referring to the fact that he had been criticised for it by the Jews and some others, he remarked: ‘We are a Christian nation, and we may as well face the music.’” AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.10
That statement of the President’s does certainly “deserve to be remembered by all citizens,” and by all others in the country. Indeed, there is not much likelihood that they will have much opportunity to forget it. The real question is, Will they “face the music”? AMS January 7, 1897, page 3.11
“Which Will It Be?” American Sentinel 12, 1, pp. 4, 5.
IS this a Protestant Christian nation, or a Roman Catholic Christian nation? An important question is this, one which contains the elements of terrific commotion for the religious forces of the country. And this question is now raised, and the issued joined, which must precipitate the contest for supremacy. President Cleveland’s “innocent” little Thanksgiving utterance of recent date, bearing the stamp of a national document, seems to have been all that was lacking to start the avalanche rolling. Note the following from the Presbyterian Messenger, quoted in the Christian Statesman, of December 12:— AMS January 7, 1897, page 4.1
“The United States Supreme Court has recently declared judicially that this is a Christian nation; and now the executive falls in line. And let us hold up not only the Christian flag, but the Protestant flag. Every historical, constitutional and legal fact and principle that makes this a Christian nation, makes it a Protestant nation. If it be inconsistent with the rights of Romanists to make this assertion, it is inconsistent with the rights of Jews and even of all irreligious men to make the official declarations that the President and the Governor have made. One of our political judges had the temerity to declare in the late Saratoga General Assembly that its not true historically, or in any other way, that this is a Protestant nation. Made in such a place it was a traitorous declaration. Politicians, who are looking for votes may presume on the liberality of Protestants and call for the papal ballots by such declaration; but all Protestants, informed as to the true history of the nation should repudiate them with indignation.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 4.2
So this is a Protestant Christian nation, is it? Hold on, now; let us see what our Roman Catholic citizens have to say on that point. In the Catholic Mirror, of December 12, is found this from the pen of Cardinal Gibbons:— AMS January 7, 1897, page 4.3
“The American nation is a Christian nation. This is manifest from its constitution, from its legislation, and from its observance of certain holidays, such as Thanksgiving and Christmas.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 4.4
Cardinal Gibbons speaks with authority for the Roman Catholic Church. And when he says that the American nation is a Christian nation, he means that it is a Roman Catholic Christian nation, for the plain reason that the Catholic Church does not recognize anything as Christian outside of her own fold. She denies that there is any salvation outside her pale. She affirms expressly that she is the Christian church, and that all other churches are schismatic and heretical. Only recently the Anglican “High Church,” which resembles the Roman Catholic Church so closely in doctrine and practice as to be almost indistinguishable from it, was refused recognition as a Christian church by the supreme head of the church of Rome. AMS January 7, 1897, page 4.5
With Church and State separated, as in the order established by our forefathers, the question as to whether or not this Government is Protestant, or even Christian, could never be raised. But now that every department of the Government has broken through this order, and declared this to be a Christian nation, the question has arisen, and already it has assumed that phase which must precipitate a conflict between Protestantism and Rome for political supremacy. Is the Government to be Roman Catholic or Protestant? As established by the framers of the Constitution, it is Protestant, in that its foundation principles are in antagonism to the papal principle of a union of religion with the State. And every move in the direction of giving it a religious character, has been a move to make it in reality, if not in name, a Roman Catholic Government. In every such move the nation has been playing into Rome’s hands. Therefore let Protestants not imagine that victory will lightly turn upon their side when the battle is joined. AMS January 7, 1897, page 5.1
“Note” American Sentinel 12, 1, p. 5.
THE Paulist Fathers of New York City, whose specialty it is to Catholicize the Protestants of the United States, have extended to Canada their mission enterprise. “Rev.” Walter Elliott, with whose work our readers are somewhat acquainted, has lately been on a tour up there. In his report, referring to his question-box, he says:— AMS January 7, 1897, page 5.1
“Among the questions was one affirming justification by faith alone, a novelty in our experience, and showing the primitive type of Protestantism in this part of Canada.... Another question was pertinent and impertinent: ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ (St. John 3:3.) Are you born again?” AMS January 7, 1897, page 5.2
These are interesting statements. Mr. Elliott has been touring thus for several years. He has been west as far as Iowa, and has had good-sized audiences in all sections. And yet to find a person “affirming justification alone” is “a novelty” in his experience. Now, justification by faith alone, is Christianity. This, then, is equivalent to saying that to find a person affirming Christianity is a novelty in his experience. This in turn shows one of two things—either there is a great dearth of Christianity among the people whom he meets, or else there is a greater dearth of those who are ready to affirm it. AMS January 7, 1897, page 5.3
Again: Mr. Elliott says that the question asked him, “Are you born again,” was “impertinent.” No one needs any better evidence than this, that the Rev. Walter Elliott is not born again. For the man who is really born again will never consider it impertinent to be asked such a question. AMS January 7, 1897, page 5.4
“The Two New Englands” American Sentinel 12, 1, pp. 5, 6.
A WRITER in the Catholic World for December, discussing the subject of “New England and the Formation of America,” argues that important as may have been the influence of the New England of the past, in the history of the nation, it is to be surpassed by the New England of the future. This is to be, because, while the New England of the past was Puritan and had great influence, the New England of the future is to be Catholic, and therefore will have much greater influence. He argues that as “Puritan New England has made our country to be a Yankee nation,” the soon-coming Catholic New England will make our country “to be a Catholic nation.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 5.1
In the opinion of this writer the future New England from which such notable result is to be expected, has already made such progress that it is almost the present New England. He says:— AMS January 7, 1897, page 5.2
“Puritan New England has made our country a Yankee nation. But the New England of yesterday is fast giving place to the New England of the future. What was Puritan New England, has been called, even now, Catholic New England. Surely the Lord Christ has intended to work greater matters by the little handful of Puritans than either they or the world have been aware of. Important as has been the part played by the New England of yesterday we may reasonably expect that even greater things will be done by her in the future. These greater things will be done through the transformation of the Puritan. We shall, in the future, esteem the works of the Puritan more for these later fruits of New England, which he did not dream of producing—to have dreamed of them would have been to him a nightmare—than for his share in making this a free nation. The Puritan has made this a religious nation, which is destined to be a Catholic nation.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 5.3
There is more substance to this view than most of the people will readily believe. The result here so confidently expected, is also nearer than many are ready to believe. Indeed, the Puritan New England system, both theoretical and practical, was so essentially Catholic, that no other result could fairly be expected than that which this writer has defined. It is the logical result. This contemplated “future New England” will be only the legitimate and strictly logical descendant of the Puritan New England. AMS January 7, 1897, page 5.4
When this “future New England” shall find itself in power and in working order, it will find also, in large measure throughout the nation, the machinery of the Puritan system existing and in good working order. Many of the same old dreadful laws used by that system, which have never been repealed, will be found serviceable. These laws, having fallen into “innocuous desuetude,” are supposed by many to be dead. But they were not dead under the regime of the former New England. And as certainly as “future New England” rises to power, all such laws found unrepealed will be found to be no more dead nor dormant than they were under the former. AMS January 7, 1897, page 5.5
Every legislature in the land, whether national or State, should make a specialty of hunting up all such old laws and repealing them at once. If the people of the nation were only half awake to the real situation, they would never rest, and would give the legislatures no rest, until this thing was thoroughly done. AMS January 7, 1897, page 6.1
“A New Sunday Bill in Congress” American Sentinel 12, 1, pp. 6, 7.
54th CONGRESS.
2nd SESSON. H. R. 9679.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 16, 1896
Mr. Washington (by request) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia and ordered to be printed.
A BILL
To further protect the first day of the week as a day of rest in the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall not be lawful for any person to keep open any place of business or maintain a stand for the sale of any article or articles of profit during Sunday, excepting vendors of books or newspapers, and apothecaries for the dispensing of medicines, and undertakers for the purpose of providing for the dead, or others for the purposes of charity or necessity; nor shall any public playing of football or baseball or any other kind of playing, sports, pastimes, or diversions, disturbing the peace and quiet of the day, be practiced by any person or persons with the District of Columbia on Sunday; nor shall any building operations or work upon railroad construction be lawful upon said day; and for any violation of this Act the person offending shall, for each offense, be liable to a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than fifty dollars, and in the case of corporations there shall be a like fine for every person employed in violation of this Act laid upon the corporation offending. AMS January 7, 1897, page 6.1
SEC. 2. That it shall be a sufficient defense to a prosecution for labor on the first day of the week that the defendant uniformly keeps another day of the week as a day of rest, and that the labor complained of was done in such a manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as a day of rest. This Act shall not be construed to prevent the sale of refreshments other than malt or spirituous liquors, or to prevent the sale of malt and spirituous liquors as now provided for by law, or tobacco, cigars, railroad and steamboat tickets, or the collection and delivery of baggage. AMS January 7, 1897, page 6.2
This bill was originated and framed by the National Sabbath Alliance of Washington, D. C.; and was presented in Congress at the request of this Alliance. After framing it themselves, and themselves having it presented, a convention was held by themselves, presided over by Bishop Satterlee, which gravely proceeded to endorse it. This convention also had a committee appointed to lobby the bill in the Houses of Congress. AMS January 7, 1897, page 6.3
Compared with former bills from the same source it will be seen that all use of openly religious words and phrases has been studiously avoided. In this respect it is probably about as taking a bill as it is possible to frame for the purpose for which it is intended: that is, to secure religious legislation under cover of something else. They may be able to make such a showing with this bill that the legislative mind shall be willing to pass it. AMS January 7, 1897, page 6.4
Yet, thought all set religious terms and phrases are studiously avoided in this bill, its essential religious meaning and intent is not one whit less than that of any other bill that has been put before Congress by the same parties. In former bills they have so fully exposed their real purpose that there can be no mistaking it, under whatever guise it may now or in future be forced to assume in order to disarm opposition. AMS January 7, 1897, page 6.5
The Sunday institution is essentially and only religious, in itself. It never can be made anything else. It is impossible to have legislation of any kind or to any degree in favor of Sunday, without having religious legislation. It is impossible for government or individuals to recognize Sunday as anywise different from the other working days of the week, without recognizing a religious institution, and conforming just so far to a religious practice. The promoters of this bill know this. They are therefore perfectly willing to tone down their proposition to any extent that will assure their adoption by Congress, knowing that as certainly as the thing is recognized or adopted in any shape, the whole field is opened, and additional steps can be taken at their leisure. We know this because we have heard them say it more than once. AMS January 7, 1897, page 6.6
But see how far they have indeed gone to give this bill an acceptable cast: “This Act shall not be construed... to prevent the sale of malt and spirituous liquors as now provided by law,” etc. That is to say, We would not have it understood that this bill shall repeal, supersede, or interfere in any way with, any law which sanctions the liquor traffic. In other words, Only give us by specific statute the national recognition of Sunday, and we will say nothing against any law providing for the liquor traffic. AMS January 7, 1897, page 6.7
How could there be made a more open bid than this is, for the support,—if not positive at least by consent—of the liquor element? How could there be a more cowardly, not to say a more tricky, compromise with the liquor traffic, than is offered in this bill? Indeed, the title Sunday Liquor Bill would be more accurately descriptive than simply Sunday bill. We are waiting to see whether the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union and the Christian Endeavorers will support this bill as they have all the others. AMS January 7, 1897, page 6.8
The “exemption” which this bill proffers to observers of another day than Sunday, is the worst one that has yet been inserted in any bill presented in Congress. In former bills it was proposed that the provisions of the Act should not apply to those who conscientiously observe another day than Sunday. In this bill, its provisions apply to all alike, up to the point of defense in a prosecution: only then does the “exemption” clause avail. For “it shall be a sufficient defense to a prosecution for labor on the first day of the week that the defendant,” etc. It is only when a man is prosecuted, and when he has thus become a “defendant” that this clause is of any avail. That is to say that under this Act every person who uniformly keeps another day of the week as a day of rest, and who labors on Sunday, shall be subject to arrest and prosecution. But when he shall have been arrested and is prosecuted, then being “the defendant” it shall be “a sufficient defense” to the “prosecution,” that he shall prove not only that he “uniformly keeps another day of the week as a day of rest,” but “that the labor complained of was done in such a manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as a day of rest.” And as it is the established rule of the courts that “the burden of proof resets upon him who claims the exemption;” and also that such disturbance may be mental, and may be caused merely by the knowledge that the person is laboring on Sunday; it is perfectly plain that under such an act as this, the observer of another day than Sunday would be placed in a position of such difficulty as ought to satisfy the greatest inquisitor-general that ever hunted a heretic. AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.1
See also where this bill places honest industry. By the plain words of the bill, “the sale of malt and spirituous liquors,” and of course the drinking of them, may be publicly carried on on Sunday wherever “provided for by law,” without any danger of interrupting or disturbing other persons, and without any danger of any person being arrested, or prosecuted, or made a defendant in court. Whereas any quiet, sober, inoffensive Christian who engages in honest labor on Sunday is instantly subject to arrest, and prosecution, and to be made defendant in such a network of difficult circumstances as to make it practically impossible to escape. AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.2
Thus by this bill drunkenness, carousal and general deviltry are given specific sanction, hoodlumism is encouraged, and idleness is enforced, on Sunday; while honest industry is forbidden, condemned and persecuted. And they expect the national Government to put the seal of its approval upon the iniquitous proposal. It may be that they can persuade the Government to do so. But how long can a Government live that so reverses the true order of things? Honest industry is the life of the State. Idleness, even voluntary, is death to the State. And enforced idleness is the suicide of the State. AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.3
There is no room for doubt that the National Sabbath Alliance took a great deal of care in the framing of this bill. It bears the marks of this all over. Bishop Satterlee and his associates probably think that in framing and promoting the bill they are pleasing the Lord; but if they had formed a set purpose to please Satan himself, it is difficult to conceive how they could have taken a course better adapted to such purpose than they have taken in the matter of framing this bill and trying to get it enacted into law. AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.4
Probably there will be those who will say that the sponsors of this bill do not mean all that we have pointed out. We are not asking anybody to tell what they do or do not mean. We do not care to know what they mean or do not mean. We do know now what they have said, and assuredly that is enough. AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.5
“Is It Christian?” American Sentinel 12, 1, pp. 7, 8.
IS the “Christian Citizenship” movement a Christian undertaking in truth, or is it such only in name? We ask this question with particular reference to some statements made by the president, Mr. Edwin D. Wheelock, in the Golden Rule, of December 10. That individual says:— AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.1
“It has taken three years to educate even a comparatively few people up to a clear understanding of the full and true meaning of the Christian Citizenship movement.... AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.2
“Christian citizenship is more than reform; it is regeneration.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.3
“It is more than the ethics of politics, it is the science of righteousness. AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.4
“It maintains that the State is as truly sacred as the Church, should be governed by as high principles, and should recognize God as the source of all authority. AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.5
“It believes that but two ways lie before our country; one leading to anarchy, the other to the application of gospel principles to public affairs. AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.6
“It is the voice of one crying in the wilderness of public sins, ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord;’ measure all things by the rule of absolute righteousness rather than that of ‘policy’; cast out whatever is not in harmony with the teaching of Christ.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.7
The first of these statements distinctly and emphatically affirms that “Christian citizenship” is regeneration. This is a scriptural term, and refers the mind to that deep and vital mystery of the gospel of God—the new birth. “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” is a cardinal doctrine of the Christian religion. This new birth is “of water and of the spirit.” John 3:5. In Titus 3:5 it is spoken of as “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy ghost.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.8
But “Christian Citizenship” is confessedly not “of water and of the Spirit.” It does not seek to attain the end it has in view by any such means. Its means are, the ballot and legislation. Through these it seeks “the application of gospel principles to public affairs.” As therefore its means are earthly and not spiritual; as regeneration is wholly a spiritual process, wrought only by spiritual agencies; and as “Christian Citizenship” claims to be regeneration and not mere reform; it follows that it is a fraud, and therefore not Christian at all. But not only is it a fraud in not being what it claims to be; it is a substitute for that which has been instituted by God for human salvation. It is a man-made system of regeneration—a substitute for the real generation which is of God by the Holy Spirit. In claiming to be regeneration, it stamps itself as not only a fraudulent, but an anti-Christian, thing. AMS January 7, 1897, page 7.9
The acceptance of Christian Citizenship as the means of regeneration, means its acceptance as the Christian religion. The Christian Citizenship worker will engage in politics—for “the application of gospel principles to public affairs” by means of the ballot and legislation can be nothing more than a form of politics—believing that he is thereby showing forth “the science of righteousness.” It is the same old error which has done such evil work all through the ages—the confounding of politics with Christianity. And this latest phase of it is no better than any of the others, and no less fraught with evil to mankind. AMS January 7, 1897, page 8.1
“Notes” American Sentinel 12, 1, pp. 9, 10.
“BY general agreement of scholars the beginning of our Christian era has been set four years wrong. By general agreement the Christmas day, December 25th, has also been set wrong.... So little have feast days and celebrations to do with religion that it never occurred to one of the four evangelists to tell us the day and the month.... All this teaches us the old lesson, that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, nor birthdays or birthyears, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 9.1
Such is a very truthful observation made by the New York Independent, of December 17; and another equally truthful which it suggests is that no surer evidence of the decadence of Christianity in the life of the people could exist than the general and ever-spreading deference paid to such celebrations by the Christian churches. The Independent will bear correction on one point: “feast days and celebrations” do have a great deal to do with religion; but nothing to do with Christianity. They simply put the stamp of paganism upon the religion of which they are made a part. AMS January 7, 1897, page 9.2
It was on this very point that the Apostle Paul wrote with the deepest concern to the church he had established in Galatia. “How turn ye again,” said he, “to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.” Galatians 4:9-11. What would the apostle say to-day were he to write to the churches, in view of their ostentatious observance of Christmas, Easter, and other festivals which God never instituted, while totally disregarding the one day which he has solemnly ordained as his everlasting memorial—the seventh day of the week? AMS January 7, 1897, page 9.3
“The Source of National Atheism” American Sentinel 12, 1, pp. 10, 11.
THE one leading characteristic of the French Revolution was atheism. Not the atheism of men as individuals, but the atheism of men in organized, representative, governmental, capacity. It was strictly national atheism: being the action of the national assembly in its official character as such. AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.1
This national atheism was not a sudden wild break of men, in an effort to present to the world a novel spectacle: it was the direct, logical, result of a system that had formerly dominated the country. AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.2
There had been fastened upon France, through the governmental authority, a religion professedly Christian. It was not Christian; yet it was adopted and ever held by the national authority, as Christian. All national favors were for this religion: the national authority forced it upon all; the national power rigidly excluded all other forms of worship. AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.3
When the Reformation of the sixteenth century came, and therein Christianity was offered to the people of France, it was tabooed, denounced, warred upon, and at last, by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, was excluded. Then the nation was left under the crushing weight of the old false religion; and it was not very long before the people of France found themselves under the necessity of relieving themselves of the incubus that was upon them. AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.4
This religion had been adopted and maintained for the supposed good of the State. It was proposed always to the State by “the Church” under the pretense that it was essential to the welfare of the State. It was found at last to be the greatest evil that afflicted the State. Instead of being for the good of the State, it was found to be only a continued and increasing curse. And in order for the State to find relief, it was essential to repudiate this national religion. AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.5
Now note: this religion, though not Christianity, was held by the people of France to be Christianity. The nation had been trained for ages in the opinion that it only was Christianity. They knew nothing else as Christianity. And to them, in repudiating it they were repudiating Christianity. In repudiating it, they did not pretend to be doing anything else than repudiating Christianity; for it was all that they knew as Christianity, and it must be repudiated. And when men intentionally repudiate Christianity, even though it be in something that is mistaken for Christianity, they commit themselves only to atheism. Thus it was that France attained to national atheism. AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.6
This, too, was nothing else than carrying to their legitimately logical conclusion the proposition and arguments, by which the country had been held under the power of that national religion. In arriving at national atheism, every step that was taken in the National Assembly was logically derived from propositions that had been laid down by the Church. Every argument offered was but the legitimate extension of the arguments already in print on behalf of the national religion. AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.7
For instance, it has always been argued, and was then argued, by the Church, that the exclusive establishment and maintenance of that particular religion as the only Christianity, was essential to the welfare of the State: and that it was the province of the State, of its own motion by an official act, to establish this religion, for its own good. The Church has long declared in behalf of the exclusive establishment of that religion, that “it cannot be doubted that it belongs to the prince to require of full right that which is necessary to the State.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.8
Upon this is was argued in the Revolution that, As this religion had been established and maintained for the good of the State, and the event had demonstrated that it was the greatest evil of the State; as it undoubtedly belonged to the State itself to require of full right that which is necessary to the State; as it was not undoubtedly necessary to the State that it be relieved of this great evil; it followed conclusively that the State had full right to repudiate the whole religious establishment. The full right to establish religion, or to do any other thing, for the welfare of the State, remains the full right to repudiate that religion, or to undo whatever may have been done, when it is found to be working evil instead of good to the State. There was no escape from this conclusion. AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.9
Holding what had been taught to them by the Church, that “The Church is in the State, and the State is not in the Church,” they declared, “We are a National Convention: we have assuredly the right to change religion”—meaning the religion of the State. “The State used its right to suppress a corporation which had no longer a palce in the new society.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.10
Bear in mind that this national religion was held by all there to be Christianity, and when this was repudiated, it was intended to be the repudiation of Christianity; and when that was repudiated there was nothing left to them but national atheism. The only religion they had then to guide them was the religion of reason; the only god the god of reason. AMS January 7, 1897, page 10.11
Thus, “the boldest measures of the French Revolution in regard to the Church, were justified beforehand from the point of view of the purest monarchical tradition.” It “was only a rigorous application of the maxims of the ancient monarchy. It was simply Gallicanism to the utmost.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 11.1
“It is well to remind the detractors of the French Revolution, that the National Assembly in this radical measure only imbibed the principles of the ancient French Monarchy.” (De Pressenseé, “The Church and the French Revolution.”) And these principles of the ancient French Monarchy were derived altogether from the national religion. “The representatives of the ancient society ... imagined that they very foundations had been removed, whereas the maxims of their fathers were being turned against them.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 11.2
And now, just now, there are national combinations of religionists, determined to fasten upon the United States their religion as the national religion. As we have shown, they have already made much progress. It is proposed by them that the State needs this, and must do it by national acts for its own good. With what they have already gained, they are certain to succeed in their designs. And as certainly as this shall come to pass, so certainly it will soon be found that instead of being for the good of the nation, it is the greatest evil that ever befell the nation, and inevitably threatens only the ruin of the nation. Then a demand will be made that for the good of the nation this religion shall be officially repudiated by the nation as such. AMS January 7, 1897, page 11.3
Bear in mind also that this religion is now proposed to the nation for adoption as Christianity. It is not Christianity, but it is proposed as essentially and only Christianity. It has been adopted, and it will be further favored, as Christianity; and when found necessary to be repudiated it will be treated still as Christianity. And intentionally to repudiate Christianity, even though this be brought about through apostate and false Christianity, is to land in atheism. And for the national authority to do this, is to land in national atheism. This is as certain now as it was before. And thus this nation, by encouraging this proposed national religion, will throw itself, as did France, into the terrible strait between the curse of a religious despotism working only certain ruin, and the curse of a national atheism which can work nothing less. Will the people, will Congress, will the nation, take warning in time? And by keeping themselves clear of all semblance of recognition of a national religion, will they do all in their power to enable this nation to escape the ruin which is but the logical result of the establishment of an exclusive national religion? AMS January 7, 1897, page 11.4
The French Revolution and the United States Government began in the same year. AMS January 7, 1897, page 11.5
In the year 1789, and because of genuine respect to Christianity, the United States rejected all semblance of national religious, holding that no national religion is Christianity. Thus in the Constitution of the United States was embodied the very principle announced by Jesus Christ for earthly government, when he said, “My kingdom is not of this world;” “Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s;” “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not.” AMS January 7, 1897, page 11.6
In the year 1789, began the French Revolution—the ievitable [sic.] logic of an exclusive national religion—an attempt of the French nation to relieve itself of the unbearable curse which had been put upon it in the exclusive establishment of a national religion. This religion was held to be Christianity, and because of its abominable practices and unbearable oppression, was hated and repudiated, and the nation was plunged into national atheism as the only escape. AMS January 7, 1897, page 11.7
Thus in these two nations in the same year God set before the world those two all-important lessons as to the right way and the wrong way. These lessons have been before the nations ever since for their instruction. By the example of the United States the other nations were led gradually but constantly in the right way. But now, against Scripture, against the Constitution and every fundamental principle of the United States, against blessed experience, and in the very face of the terrible warning of the French Revolution, the allied religious forces of the United States are determined to accomplish here the establishment of an exclusive national religion. AMS January 7, 1897, page 11.8
Is it possible that the American people will allow themselves and the national power thus to be carried captive to error that cannot possibly mean anything but ruin! AMS January 7, 1897, page 11.9