The American Sentinel 15
February 15, 1900
“Front Page” American Sentinel 15, 7, pp. 97, 98.
CHRISTIAN government is government by love; civil government is government by force; hence there can be no such thing as Christian civil government. AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.1
GOVERNMENT by force represents justice, and is therefore not antichristian, for justice is not against Christianity. But government by force represents justice alone, and justice alone is not Christianity. In Christianity justice is combined with mercy, and “mercy rejoiceth against judgment.” Christianity shows present justice satisfied by the cross of Christ, present mercy given the transgressor, and judgment delayed to a future time. To delay judgment in civil government would be to defeat civil government. Not to delay judgment for transgression in Christian government would defeat Christianity. Hence civil government cannot be Christian; neither, in its proper sphere, can it be antichristian. AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.2
CIVIL government becomes antichristian when it tries to be Christian, or when it makes a profession of religion. AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.3
WHAT is the difference, in principle, between a civil observance of a religious day (the “civil Sabbath”) and a religious observance of that day? The very fact that the day is a religious day makes the observance of it a religious observance. And Sunday is, beyond all question, a religious day. AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.4
IF the Sunday institution had the support of the divine law, would there be any need of the frantic call for its support by human law? Would anything upheld by Omnipotence need to be supported by the arm of man? AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.5
IF “the powers that be are ordained of God,” they are certainly not ordained to go contrary to the will of God. And in obedience to the will of any power, under this ordinance, the will of God must stand first. AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.6
THE whole principle underlying religious persecution is contained in the plea that religious observances ought to be enforced by the civil power. AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.7
IN the annual report of work of the New England Sabbath Protective League, we note the statement that “the League is formed for the purpose of defending the Sabbath against the persistent encroachments upon its sacredness by business and pleasure.” AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.8
The special object of this organization is to preserve the sacredness of the Sabbath. The purpose of the League is therefore plainly a religious one. AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.9
Yet the League depends almost entirely, in its work, upon arousing public sentiment in favor of the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws. AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.10
It is plain, therefore, that the New England Sabbath Protective League is an organization which demands the use of the civil power to serve a religious purpose; which, in principle, is all that was ever done or ever could be done under a union of church and state. Such a demand is both un-American and unchristian. AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.11
The League wants the civil power employed to preserve the (supposed) sacredness of Sunday. But how can the sacredness of anything be preserved by law? The inherent sacredness of the Sabbath was established by its divine Author, and that cannot be affected by anything that man may do. AMS February 15, 1900, page 97.12
The only other way in which the sacredness of the Sabbath can be concerned is in the keeping of it. It is to be kept holy—or sacred. But is this anything that can be secured by human law? Can the law of man make anyone sacredly observe the Sabbath? And has human law any business to attempt to enforce a sacred observance? AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.1
Will a person observe the Sabbath sacredly without going to church, where no circumstances prevent him from doing so? And if a sacred observance of the day is to be enforced, will it not therefore be necessary to enforce attendance at church? AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.2
And in this unamerican effort to preserve Sunday sacredness by law, is there not a confession that the alleged sacredness of Sunday is more a theory than a fact, and must depend upon the outward show which the enforcement of law can produce, or fail because it has no higher source of support? AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.3
Further on in this annual report we find this quotation which has been much used in the effort to justify Sunday legislation: “The liberty of rest for each is dependent on a law of rest for all.” AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.4
How can this be? What proof of it is to be found in spiritual or in natural law—in reason or in revelation? AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.5
There is a liberty of rest, and there is also a liberty of work. The same law which said, Thou shalt rest, said also, Thou shalt labor. The right of a man to labor is universally conceded to be as sacred as any other right. It is just as sacred as the right to rest. It is altogether wrong, therefore, to compel one man to stop labor, in order that another man may rest. AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.6
The right to labor being as sacred as the right to rest, how can it be any more true that “the liberty of rest for each is dependent on a law of rest for all,” than it is true that the liberty of labor for each is dependent on a law of labor for all? Why not make one man work in order that another man may work, as well as make one man rest in order that another may rest? AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.7
One man wants to work on Sunday; another man wants to rest. Why should the man who wants to work be compelled to rest, any more than the man who wants to rest should be compelled to work? AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.8
Some one may reply, There is more to this question than the simple right of mankind to rest or to work. The duty of Sabbath observance is involved in it. AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.9
But who shall say what day of the week is the Sabbath? This is a disputed question—a point of religious controversy. Can the state settle a religious controversy and command a religious observance? Has the legislature either the qualification or the authority to take such action? AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.10
If not—as all must agree—then what possible ground of justification can there be for compelling any person to rest, in order that the liberty of rest may be secured to some one else? AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.11
The assertion is often heard in connection with the agitation for the enactment and enforcement of Sabbath laws, that the Creator ordained “one day in seven” as a day of rest. People who offer this in support of a Sunday law are not sincere; they do not believe in a one-day-in-seven law at all. What they want—and the only thing they will accept—is a Sunday law. The Creator did set apart one day in seven, it is true; but he did not leave any indefiniteness about it, and he did not set apart Sunday, or the first day of the week. He set apart “the seventh day,” which, as the weekly cycle was fixed by that very act, must necessarily have been, and must now be, the seventh day of the week. AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.12
“Progress Toward Despotism” American Sentinel 15, 7, pp. 98, 99.
DEVELOPMENTS at the seat of the national Government reveal a rapid progress along the pathway to governmental despotism. AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.1
The first great step in this direction was the subjection of the policy of foreign conquest. That policy has to be justified in some way, and in the effort to do that have been involved the further steps in the direction of repudiating the principles of free government that has since been taken. AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.2
First, it was declared that the policy of foreign conquest was upheld by the Constitution. Next, the Constitution was declared to be a very flexible instrument that could be stretched and bent so as to cover almost anything. Next it was declared that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were “out of date and that while entitled to some regard as venerable documents having a historical importance, they could not be binding upon such a great and growing power as the United States has now become. AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.3
Next it was discovered that, however these doctrines might be regarded, the Government possessed certain powers which might be exercised “outside the Constitution;” and this was soon hailed as a discovery of great importance. It was soon settled, in fact, that the Constitution did not apply to territory outside the mainland of North America at all, and that in the new island possessions Congress might govern just as it pleased. And so it was considered proper to vest in one individual, for the government of this new territory, power and authority beyond any that could belong to him under the Constitution. Power and authority was vested in the Chief Executive of the United States—the President—which under the Constitution belonged to the legislative and judicial departments of the Government; and by this he was raised to a position over the new territory little if anything short of an actual dictator. AMS February 15, 1900, page 98.4
Under the Constitution, Congress alone can declare war; yet the President of the United States, without Congress, put into the field of warfare against the Filipinos a larger army than was ever before raised by the United States to contend with a foreign power. AMS February 15, 1900, page 99.1
This was a plain usurpation of power, growing out of the authorized policy that had been adopted in dealing with the territory taken from Spain. But with this, as with every step in the departure from the former principles, vigorous and unceasing efforts have been made to fortify it and establish it as a legitimate feature of American government. It has even been proposed, under this program of government “without the Constitution,” that the President shall have authority to conclude secret treaties with other nations, himself alone, or with such advice as he may choose, from his cabinet or perchance from a Catholic prelate, instead of “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” as the Constitution provides. AMS February 15, 1900, page 99.2
As was inevitable, all these steps taken for the government of foreign territory “without the Constitution,” and which were in the direction of “government by a single mind”—a one-man power—have begun to react upon the government of the home territory, to which it is still admitted the Constitution applies; and steps are now being taken at Washington to strengthen the power and authority of the Chief Executive over the people of the United States. AMS February 15, 1900, page 99.3
A New Hampshire senator has moved for an amendment to the rules of the Senate, for the purpose of shutting off the privilege of speaking upon general resolutions that may be introduced. The proposed amendment provides that “All resolutions shall be referred without debate to their appropriate committees, unless the Senate by unanimous consent orders otherwise.” The purpose and significance of this move are explained thus:— AMS February 15, 1900, page 99.4
“The adoption of this rule would make it impossible for any senator to speak during the morning hour upon any resolution which he might have offered, except by unanimous consent expressly granted, because any resolution offered would go without debate to the appropriate committee. The committees are in the control of the majority party in Congress, and would not report any resolution for consideration which did not support the administration. Thus, by the operation of this rule, the voice of free debate would be as completely justified in the Senate as is the case in the House, where nothing can be considered without the previous indorsement of the committee on rules. AMS February 15, 1900, page 99.5
“The Senate, which has remained a deliberative body, where ever State had the right, through its two senators, to be heard upon the general state of the country, would fall under the complete control of the man making up the majority of the committee on rules, and practically under the control of the one man who might be chairman of that committee.” AMS February 15, 1900, page 99.6
It is felt by the supporters of this move that there is too much talk in the Senate in favor of political liberty. A senator from South Dakota has been speaking in behalf of freedom for the people of the Philippines, and a senator from Illinois has been speaking in behalf of the Boers, and it is declared that the administration must not be subjected to such attacks. This proposed amendment to the rules will, if carried, practically shut off all speeches attacking the policy of the administration, because it will be necessary first to secure the unanimous consent of the Senate, and the Senate will never be unanimous in opposition to the policy of the President. It will consign all resolutions attacking the President’s policy to committees which “are in the control of the majority party in Congress, and would not report any resolution for consideration which did not support the administration.” AMS February 15, 1900, page 99.7
Thus the administration will be left practically at liberty to pursue its own policy, regardless of Congress, which is to say, regardless of the people whom Congress represents. And then, the Government will not be a government of the people by the people, but a government of the people by “the administration,” which at least approximates to and must naturally soon result in, government by a single mind—a one-man power—a monarchy as absolute as that of Russia. AMS February 15, 1900, page 99.8
In line with all this that has been cited, is a bill that is now before Congress which provides that the President shall be given complete authority to prescribe rules of government and to appoint officials for their enforcement throughout the Philippine archipelago. The passage of this measure is looked for at an early date. AMS February 15, 1900, page 99.9
“Back Page” American Sentinel 15, 7, p. 112.
THE Sunday laws of the States all recognize that it is necessary to do some work on Sunday, and provide an exemption for such work, often specifying work which is necessary only to avoid some pecuniary loss. But if it is a necessity that people should be saved from pecuniary loss, is it also a necessity that the people have the right to choose their own hours of rest, labor, and recreation? Are the natural rights of the people as much of a necessity to them as is something that can be represented in dollars and cents? The SENTINEL contends that nothing can be more of a necessity to the people than that they be allowed to enjoy their natural rights and liberties. AMS February 15, 1900, page 112.1
HOW TRUE was the prophecy of Thomas Jefferson, the great American advocate and exponent of natural rights, concerning the survival of the rights of the American people: “From the conclusion of this war [the Revolution] we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”—Notes on Virginia, Query XVII. AMS February 15, 1900, page 112.2
Is it not true that the people have “forgotten themselves but in the sole faculty of making money?” Are they not careless of their rights, save such rights as are concerned with money-getting—is not money-getting, with the vast majority, the one all-absorbing craze? And how far off can we be from the convulsion which Jefferson foresaw? AMS February 15, 1900, page 112.3
WHAT is more tiresome than to spend a whole day doing nothing? What is more taxing on the nerves than a whole day of compulsory idleness? And yet this is the remedy proposed for the weariness that comes from the week of labor, by the people who advocate Sunday laws. For those people, as is well known, want to forbid both labor and recreation on the day they believe to be the Christian Sabbath. They themselves can find congenial occupation in going to church on Sunday, and they would go to church and observe the day without any Sunday law. But people who do not want to go to church, and do not have a religious regard for the day, can only be made more weary than ever by being forcibly shut off from the avenues of exercise and recreation they would naturally choose—compelled to loaf through the daylight hours of the Sunday Sabbath. To call this a remedy for weariness is truly a mockery. AMS February 15, 1900, page 112.4