The American Sentinel 12
February 25, 1897
“Editorial” American Sentinel 12, 8, p. 113.
THE Sabbath is God’s, not man’s. AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.1
The Lord says that it is “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God:” “My holy day.” AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.2
It was made for man, that is true: but it itself is the Lord’s, designed for the good of man. AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.3
It is the Lord’s institution, established for the good of man: and it is the man’s, and is only for the good of men, when it is held ever to be the Lord’s and is devoted sacredly to the object for which the Lord established it. AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.4
What is that object?—That man may know only the Lord. Therefore it is written: “Hallow my Sabbaths, and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.” “It is a sign between me and you, throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.” AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.5
THERE are many people who do not know that Jehovah is God. There are many who say that they do not know whether there is any God at all. Yet all can know that Jehovah is God. AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.6
All that any one needs to do to know that Jehovah is God, is merely to employ the means which He has established that He may be known. “Hallow my Sabbaths and the shall be a sign between me and you that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.” AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.7
Surely that is simply enough. Surely that proposition if fair enough. Wherever there is one who does not know God, let him hallow the Sabbath of the Lord and he will know that Jehovah is God. And if any one will not take enough interest in the matter to do so simple a thing as that, he is certainly without excuse. AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.8
And think of it: It is eternal life to know God; for it is written, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.9
Eternal life is in knowing God; and by hallowing His Sabbaths God may be known; and yet men will despise His Sabbath, will trample it under foot, will ostracise, cast-out and persecute those who hold it, will set up a fraud in its place, and will make laws to compel the acceptance of the fraud instead of the genuine! AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.10
God established the Sabbath: man established the Sunday. The word of God says that “the seventh day is the Sabbath:” the word of man says that Sunday is the Sabbath. The word of God is the truth; therefore the seventh day is the Sabbath, by which is the knowledge of God, by which is eternal life; and Sunday is the fraud. AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.11
Is it wise then, is it safe, for Congress, State legislatures, or judges, to allow themselves to be made instruments in a grand scheme to shut away from men the God-given means of attaining to the knowledge of God and eternal life? AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.12
Who is the one most interested in keeping from men the knowledge of God? Who is the one most determined to keep men from the way of eternal life? Who? Every one can tell. Then into whose hands are they playing who by legislation, by law, or by any other means, keep men from the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord? In whose interests is it that Sunday—the false Sabbath, the false sign—is exalted, and supported, and forced upon men by all the power of earth? AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.13
We know that this is not the way that the Sabbath question is usually looked at; but this is the way it should be looked at, for this is the way the Bible puts it—and the Bible is right. AMS February 25, 1897, page 113.14
“Liberty Not Lost” American Sentinel 12, 8, p. 114.
LIBERTY—in the highest and truest sense of the term—cannot be lost except by voluntary surrender. No combination of Church and State power, no Sunday “laws,” no restrictions that can be put upon an individual by religious legislation, can of themselves take away that individual liberty that is from God. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.1
God is infinitely superior to all these forces, and it is His will that every one of His creatures should be free. This is so because freedom is indispensable to the rendering of that worship which is due from the individual to his Creator. God can accept no worship and no service that is not freely given. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.2
It is not therefore in any spirit of hopelessness that we point out the dangers which now threaten the liberties of the American people. It may be, indeed, that the Constitution, and those principles of justice which it embodies, and upon which both the national and State governments are founded, will no longer serve as a protection to individual rights. It would seem that this is all but true of the situation even now. But even though the Constitution be entirely subverted, and though the very pillars of free government fall, soul liberty must still remain at the disposal of its divine Author. Its source is higher than any earthly constitution or government. All of liberty that ever found its way into such embodiments, was placed there by Him who presides over the destinies of all men; and when any people reject it as a principle of government, there still remains that avenue through which the gifts of God descend in their most perfect form, and which no governmental power can control. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.3
This avenue the individual himself controls, and its use depends upon his own volition. It is the avenue of faith in the Word of God, necessitated by the relation of every individual to God. That relation is an individual relation, and is independent of earthly governments or power. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.4
What we would do, in view of the encroachments upon the guaranties of liberty set in the principles and institutions of the Government, is to point out to all the one sure means by which liberty may be retained in the individual life. We are not prophesying the loss of all liberty. We know that liberty will not be lost; that after Sunday “laws” shall have been made as oppressive as enthroned despotism can make them, and enforced as rigorously as the churches are demanding they should be, even after the decree shall have been enforced that none may buy or sell save such as do homage to the papacy through that day she has set up,—there will be those who in the very midst of persecution will enjoy liberty in its fullness, because they have been set free by the Son of God. “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.5
It was the Son of God who, in the midst of the “burning fiery furnace” kindled by Nebuchadnezzar of old, brought to the three faithful one such freedom that had never been their before. And that was a freedom for all time of the futility of any effort of earthly government to take away liberty from the soul. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.6
And the time is coming—such is the unmistakable indication of events—when every individual must decide it with himself whether in his own case liberty shall be lost, or retained as these ancient worthies retained it. But this need cause no person fear or despair. Never were the three Hebrews better off, or in the government of greater happiness, than when in the midst of the fiery furnace. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.7
The prospect before every individual who will serve and obey God is bright indeed. We would not ... point to this as well as to the gathering storm of religious persecution. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.8
“The Two Ways” American Sentinel 12, 8, pp. 114-116.
IN one of the cities of the West, lately, it was arranged to celebrate by a ball, the opening of a mission depot. The celebration happened to be appointed by Wednesday night. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.1
“The ministers of sixteen churches of the city established “an emphatic protest,” among other things, “against the presumption of arranging for such celebrating on the night generally conceded to the prayer-meeting, without any consultation with those who nearly concerned.” AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.2
This is another of those general pointers that show how determined are the preachers to rule everybody in everything. They insist that people who are too religious shall conform in an altogether outward and formal way, to the ways and institutions of those who are religious. That is, they insist that people who are not religious, shall act as though they were religious, when the have no heart in it. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.3
People who are not religious have just as much right to find entertainment in the way that they choose as do people who are religious have to find entertainments the way that they choose. In other words, people who are not religious have just as much right to go to them as people who are religious have to go to a prayer-meeting. And there is no sort of presumption in those who are not religious, going to such entertainment on the same night that the religious ones go to prayer-meeting. Indeed, the only presumption in the case is in anyone calling such a thing presumption. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.4
Now we are not admitting for one moment that a ball is as good as a prayer-meeting. There is no ... comparison between them. A ball is not a good ... at all; while a prayer-meeting is only good. But there is also a great difference between the two sorts of people. The people who go to balls, ought to go to prayer-meeting instead. They ought never to go to balls at all, and they ought to go to prayer-meeting every time. And this must be of their own free choice. And to show a disposition that would compel them to go to prayer-meeting if we could; or that censures them for going somewhere else on prayer-meeting night; is not the best way to cause them to choose, or incline them, to go to the prayer-meeting. AMS February 25, 1897, page 114.5
THE REALITIES OF CHRISTIANITY
Of course no Christian ever goes to a ball. The Christian has substantial pleasures and entertainments of an order so much higher than balls or anything else that this world can furnish, that such things can find no place in his thought at all. To him the prayer-meeting so far surpasses the ball or any other worldly entertainment, that there can never be any shadow of rivalry or divided purpose when the two things fall on the same night. He is a Christian. He is not of this world, even as Christ is not of this world. His mind, his affection, his heart, is set on things above, not on things on the earth. And his pleasures and entertainment are from a source as much purer, and are of an order as much higher, than this world or anything that is of this world, as is the difference and the distance between heaven and earth. AMS February 25, 1897, page 115.1
Now the person who goes to balls and finds his pleasures and entertainment in such things as this world affords, does not know that Christianity presents these higher pleasures and richer entertainments. And while he does not know this, shall he be deprived of what little fleeting pleasure he may be able to find in the world where he is? And above all, shall he be deprived of it by professed Christians? And more than this, when “the ministers of sixteen churches” show so much jealousy of his little joy, is such action calculated to convince him that there is a reality about the superior pleasures which they say belong with the religion that they profess? AMS February 25, 1897, page 115.2
SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD
These ministers said of themselves: “We, as ministers of the gospel and followers of a religion that demands of us separation from the world, take this opportunity to offer our emphatic protest,” etc. It is true enough and it is supremely proper that they should be followers of a religion that demands of them separation from the world. Why, then, being separated from the world, do they still try to run the world as though they yet belonged to it? The proper thing for us to do, who are separated from this world, is so to present the transcendent glories of the world to which we belong that people will leave this old sinful, troublesome, fleeting world, and come over to the happy, holy, eternal bliss of the world to come, but which to the Christian begins already in this. AMS February 25, 1897, page 115.3
Those who are of this world know that the best that they can get from it is unsatisfactory. They know that even the best pleasures that it can afford do not satisfy—that they are not pleasures at all for more than the moment. On the other hand those who have hold on the heavenly world know that every item is very satisfaction itself—their joy is full, their peace passeth all understanding, their meditation is sweet, their study is a delight, their very labor is restful. Those who know this good of the other world even in this, are to let its love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness and goodness, so shine in their lives, they are to be so glad, so rejoicing in the Lord always—and all this is simply to say that they are to be Christians—that those who know only the apples-of-Sodom-pleasures and good of this world shall see that there is a source of pleasure and of all goodness and truth—that there is indeed a world that is so much better than this one that they will freely, gladly, leave the fleeting shadows of this one, and enter into the enjoyment of the eternally-enduring substance of the other world. AMS February 25, 1897, page 115.4
LET US NOT BE HARD-HEARTED
Then even though they will not take the good and the joy of the world to which we belong, oh let us not be so hard-hearted as to want to deny to them the little pleasures that they try so hard to find in this world. There is but little of it at the very best, and even though there were much of it there is but a very short time at the most in which they can possibly have it. Then when the pleasure is so little, so fleeting, so unsatisfying, and the time so very short in which they can have it, even though they take all the time they will ever have, it is cruel to want to deprive them of it; and to brand it as presumption if the times of their uncommon pleasures happen to fall at the times of our common ones. AMS February 25, 1897, page 115.5
No, no. The Christian, while exceedingly sorry that people who for the taking can have the best that the universe affords will seek to be pleased and satisfied with the very worst, will not attempt to take from them against their will or their wish the little empty pleasures that they may be able by such hard endeavor to gain. AMS February 25, 1897, page 115.6
DON’T AMSK PEOPLE TO BE DISHONEST
It is proper also to say to these “ministers of sixteen churches” and to all others, that the Lord Jesus does not want any person to make pretensions to being religious from any sort of outward considerations whatever. He does not want any person to act as though he were religious when his whole heart is not in it. Here is His word: “Either make the tree good and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt; for a tree is known by his fruit.” The Author of Christianity would rather have a man to be openly and honestly worldly than to have him make a profession and an outward show of Christianity when he is not a Christian. Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt, and be done with it. AMS February 25, 1897, page 115.7
The Lord wants no criss-cross work. He wants it straight and honest from the heart, or not at all. And every man who has any respect for himself wants it so too. And it is in every way better to have it so. It is better for a man to be honestly wicked than to be hypocritically good. An honest infidel is better—he is a better man and it is better to have him in the world—than a dishonest Christian. AMS February 25, 1897, page 115.8
Of course, rightly speaking, there is no such thing as a dishonest Christian; for if he is dishonest in anything he simply is not a Christian. But yet every Christian is obliged with sorrow to confess that there are those who bear the name, and make the profession, of being Christians, who are not honestly such. They are such only from policy of some phase—perhaps indeed that they may not be counted presumptuous by the ministers of sixteen churches, when the night of their worldly pleasures happens to be the same as the prayer-meeting night. But may the Lord save the people from all such religion as that! AMS February 25, 1897, page 116.1
Let all who bear the name of Christian be Christians indeed; then there will not be nearly so many people going to balls on prayer-meeting nights; and then those who do go to balls on prayer-meeting nights will not be denounced as presumptuous by those who do not go. AMS February 25, 1897, page 116.2
“The Clergy Against the Bible” American Sentinel 12, 8, pp. 116, 117.
NOW that the political campaign is ended, the preachers are finding time between the filling of their ... pulpits and laying plans to get control of the government, to discuss the question of the infallibility of the Bible. As the Bible says nothing about political campaigning or getting control of the civil power pertaining to the work of the Christian ministry, but speaks distinctly to the contrary, it is perhaps not stranger to find the question of its infallibility should have become a ... point. AMS February 25, 1897, page 116.1
Foremost in the ranks of dissenters from this cardinal principle of orthodoxy, is the Rev. Lyman Abbott, of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn. Dr. Abbott discourses seem to be in the main a statement of his beliefs in regard to the Scriptures. He does not believe Genesis—that has been known ever since he became successor of Henry Ward Beecher. Not long ago he had a laugh in his congregation over the idea of the fish in the Book of Jonah; and a little later he announced his disbelief in another portion of the sacred volume as to what parts of the Bible—if any—he places out in the realm of fiction, it would be difficult to judge from his discourses. One thing he does believe in, however, and that is a strict Sunday law. In the February Christian Endeavorer, we find him saying:— AMS February 25, 1897, page 116.2
“I think that experience demonstrates that a day of rest must be secured not merely by private agreement, but by legislative enactments vigorously enforced.” AMS February 25, 1897, page 116.3
Some of the papers have been drawing comparisons between Dr. Abbott’s words concerning the Book of Jonah and the words of Thomas Paine on the same subject, and discover such a similarity of language as to come to the conclusion that it is a case of teacher and pupil. The only difference is that in Paine’s day infidelity did not presume to speak from the “Christian” pulpit. AMS February 25, 1897, page 116.4
What has made the question of the Bible’s inferiority especially prominent just now, however, is a discussion which took place at a meeting of about three hundred prominent Methodist ministers at the Methodist Book Concern, New York City, February 15. There an editor of the leading Methodist journal in America, Mr. Buckley, stated that he did not believe in the infallibility of the Bible in the English version. This announcement created considerable disorder, in the midst of which Mr. Buckley maintained his position and demanded that the question be put to vote. This was finally done, with the result that only one vote was obtained for the view that the Bible, in English, is infallible. AMS February 25, 1897, page 116.5
Of course, the practical effect of this attitude of this representative Methodist body will be to lessen confidence in the Bible, as read by the masses in English-speaking countries. And since the latter can read no other, they are from this latest Methodist standpoint left without any Bible at all; for a Bible that is fallible is not the Word upon which we can depend for salvation. Faith being the indispensable requisite to salvation, and demanding unquestioning belief of the Word of God, we must have that Word itself, or derive no benefit from the plan of salvation. AMS February 25, 1897, page 117.1
And the same is of course true of the German, French, and any other Bible, since all these are but translations of the original text, and therefore as fallible as the English Bible. The work of the British and Foreign Bible Society and similar bodies in giving the Bible to the nations and places of the world, must be discounted, since they have only furnished translations, which are therefore fallible and even if we would go back to the original text for an infallible authority, we are met by the fact that there are nothing but copies of the original writings now in existence; and of course a copyist is just as fallible as a translator. AMS February 25, 1897, page 117.2
Hence the doctrine that the Bible, in the English or other tongues, is not infallible, is equivalent to a denial of the infallibility of any Bible known to the world to-day. The real nature of this objection may be understood from the fact that this is one of the leading points sought to be made against the Bible by the author of the “Age to Reason.” AMS February 25, 1897, page 117.3
As the AMERICAN SENTINEL stands for liberty, for justice, for equal rights to all men, so it stands for the Christian’s Bible, against the traditions, customs, and popery which have sought to take the place of the Word, and which have ever been a menace to the liberties and rights of the people. The less reverence men have for the Bible, the more reverence they have for tradition and the opinions of men in higher station than themselves; and the more this reverence finds expression, the nearer do men come to the full realization of popery. AMS February 25, 1897, page 117.4
We believe it would be well for the clergy to settle the question of their belief in the Bible’s infallibility before proceeding further with the scheme to take control of the Government and make the “revealed will of Christ” the supreme authority in our civil affairs. Are they sure that we have the “revealed will of Christ” in the “fallible” English Bible? This is a question which ought, with them, to take precedence of all others. AMS February 25, 1897, page 117.5
“An Illustration of Greek ‘Learning’” American Sentinel 12, 8, pp. 117, 118.
IN a recent number of the Christian Advocate, of this city, there was printed—and from a Doctor of Philosophy too—one of the most thoughtless articles we ever saw in a journal of any standing. We do not mention it here to criticise it, but to call the sober attention of thoughtful people, and of that kind of thoughtless people too, to an important consideration that is involved in it. AMS February 25, 1897, page 117.1
This Doctor of Philosophy was in Greece and sent to the Christian Advocate an account of his journey from Patras—which is the principal port of the Gulf of Corinth to Pireus, which is the port of Athens, with descriptions of the Acropolis of Corinth and the Acropolis of Athens. AMS February 25, 1897, page 117.2
In his description of the temples of the Acropolis of Athens he speaks of them repeatedly as “sacred”—“the sacred cella of her sacred house,” etc. He does not say that by the Greeks and other heathen anciently they were considered sacred. Nowhere in the article does it appear that he used the word with any such idea as that it is merely in accommodation to ancient notions. Every sentiment in the article bears irresistibly to the conviction that the writer himself considers those places sacred and uses the word in the same sense that the ancient Greeks did. In other words, the writer is evidently so imbued with Greek ideas, Greek conceptions, and Greek modes of thinking, that what to them was “sacred” is to him sacred. AMS February 25, 1897, page 117.3
But everybody knows that those Greeks were sheer heathen. And all who have read much know that they were heathen of such a sort that their very idea of sacredness was profanity, and their most sacred emblem an obscene symbol. That a man in this age, in the presence of Christian ideas and in a Christian journal should speak of the places that to those heathen were “sacred,” and himself use the word in the same sense as did they, certainly shows a thoughtlessness that is remarkable. AMS February 25, 1897, page 117.4
But this is not all. Please read the following:— AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.1
“Thirdly comes the crown and pride of all temples made with hands, the Parthenon, the temple of the Athenian Virgin. To attempt any description of this superb shrine would be a work of supererogation alike distasteful to gods and men.” AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.2
“Distasteful to gods.” Is it true, then, that there are really such things as gods to whom things can be distasteful? Does this writer think that the Greek gods still have their habitat on the Acropalis of Athens and round about, so that if he should take the liberty of writing up their shrines for the consideration of the barbarian Americans, they would be displeased—does he? If not, what does he mean? And if he does, what does he mean? AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.3
Does he not know that such of the Greek gods as had any real identity, were devils? While Athens and Corinth were in their glory, and their gods were worshiped in all the corrupt and corrupting rites that became them, it was written to people who dwelt there: “The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils.” But they sacrificed unto their gods. Are these devils the gods for whom this writer has so much respect that he would not do so slight a thing as to write a detailed account of their “sacred” shrines lest he should do that which was “distasteful” to them? AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.4
If not this, then does he believe that the mythical things of the vain imagination of the Greeks, were really gods, and of such enduring substance that they still continue in the ancient haunts; so that if a person should not there walk softly and with reverent mien or should attempt to write about them and their “sacred” places, they would be offended—at least in taste? Does he not know that they were “nothing?” AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.5
If he believes neither of these things, then why does he write so? For, as before suggested, there is no hint that he writes otherwise than with sobriety and from conviction. And if he believes either of them, then his article betrays a remarkable thoughtlessness. AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.6
It is not to be supposed that he takes devils to be these gods, and would hesitate to do anything distasteful to them. It is possible, however, that his mind may have become so thoroughly saturated with Greek ideas, his imagination so pervaded with Greek conceptions, and his admiration so engrossed with the “perfections” of Greek sentiment, that all these things appear to him just as they did to the Greeks themselves, that they are all as real to him and in the same way as they were to the Greeks themselves. And that this is indeed most probable, is strongly suggested in his statement that the Parthenon was “the crown and pride of all temples made with hands.” But this again betrays sheer thoughtlessness or worse. Did he never read the description of the Temple of God at Jerusalem that was built by Solomon. It far surpassed the Parthenon. AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.7
Surely every person who will think at all on the subject can see at once that the Greek gods were in conception nothing but the reflection of the imagination of the Greeks themselves. And every person who has reason knows that in disposition and character the Greek gods were perfectly devilish. And if then he will think for a moment he will see clearly that in disposition and character the Greek gods were but the reflection of the disposition and character of the Greeks themselves. He will see therefore that these gods were, so far as themselves were concerned, literally nothing; but were in fact only the Greeks themselves—and every one of them has been dead from a thousand to two or three thousand years. AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.8
Then as for the gods themselves, why should this writer think that he could do anything that would be distasteful to nothing? And as for the Greeks who were in fact their own gods, but who have been dead so long, why should he think he could do anything distasteful to them? And as the dispositions and characters of those Greeks when they were alive were so essentially devilish, why should he hesitate to do what might be distasteful to them even though they were all alive to-day. That the thing were distasteful or even offensive to them would be one of the best possible evidences of the essential virtue of it, and that it was the very thing to do. AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.9
An important question upon all this is, Where is the merit in Greek philosophy, religion, or art—for their art was but idolatry? What possible good can come to anybody from contemplating and absorbing such a mass of falsehood, corruption and vanity? The Latin field is the same. Yet these are the chief field, and the pride, and “learning,” in almost all the colleges in the world. It is so even in professed Christian colleges. But how is it possible for young men, or young women, or anybody in fact, to study such stuff as all that really is, without becoming essentially paganized? It is not possible. AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.10
But what was this paganism to Greece and Rome? What did it do for them? What did this philosophy, religion, and art, in its perfection, do for the Greeks and Romans? Was the result of all this with them, so altogether good and profitable, that it needs to be reproduced in the world? Every man who thinks, knows that the height of Greek and Roman development, when all this “shone” in its “brightest lustre,” was the deepest state of moral degradation that had ever been seen in the world since the day that Sodom and Gomorrah perished. Does it need to be reproduced in the world? Every decent man is compelled to say, No. Then why should that which produced it before be reproduced and glorified in the world? Can you indulge the cause and escape the effect? It is time that the people began to think. AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.11
“Note” American Sentinel 12, 8, p. 118.
WE have reached a time when individualism finds its sole refuge in the gospel of Jesus Christ. AMS February 25, 1897, page 118.1
“Notes” American Sentinel 12, 8, pp. 122, 123.
AN exchange says that “The ministers of Salt Lake City, Utah, have passed resolutions recommending capital punishment, based on these grounds, to wit: ‘That the Bible favors the infliction of the death penalty for the crime of murder; that the Lord has never ordered it repealed; that it has never been repealed, and is, consequently, still in force; that such being the undisputed facts in the case, it follows that it is right; and therefore the Utah legislature should so recognize it and make laws in conformity.” AMS February 25, 1897, page 122.1
This is the doctrine that the United States Government is asked to accept in the proposed “Christian Amendment” to the Constitution. By that amendment, the Government would be bound to enforce by civil penalties all that is commanded in the Word of God and not repealed. And as the Bible leaves no side of human life and duty untouched, but covers all by its precepts, the Government, having passed the amendment, would merely have to consider theological questions as to what the Bible enjoins. And of course it would devolve on the theologians to say what a command of Scripture means, and whether it has been repealed, or is still in force. This would make of Congress an assembly of contending theologians? It is our impression that there is enough of such controversy in the country as it is. AMS February 25, 1897, page 123.1