American Sentinel, vol. 5

April 3, 1890

“Front Page” American Sentinel 5, 14.

E. J. Waggoner

At a meeting of the school teachers of Douglas Country, Kansas, lately, there was “an animated debate” upon the following question:- AMS April 3, 1890, page 105.1

In the provision made in the Constitution, for the separation of Church and State, does the word Church mean or include Christianity? AMS April 3, 1890, page 105.2

This seems to imply that the Constitution which they had in mind makes use of the word Church; but neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitution of Kansas uses the word in any such connection. But whatever the teachers meant it was finally concluded by them that “the word Church does not mean or include Christianity.” We should like those teachers to tell us what Christianity is, or amounts to in this world, without the Church of Christ. There may be a church without Christianity, but it is impossible to have Christianity without a church. Those teachers need to be taught before they discuss such a question again. AMS April 3, 1890, page 105.3

The Christian Nation wants a “Protestant university” at Washington, and what is more, it wants the Government to build it, or at least contribute liberally toward the enterprise. In its issue of March 19 that paper says:- AMS April 3, 1890, page 105.4

Since the Catholics made a successful venture in founding a University at Washington, various projects for a great national university under Protestant auspices have been suggested and discussed. Every one seems ready to admit that the national capital is an ideal strategic point for the location of such an institution, and every one is in favor of it. But it requires something more than good wishes to endow a university, and while Uncle Sam has millions of surplus stored away in his great money vaults, it is not an easy matter to get their doors opened by those who have the power to do so, namely our legislators. AMS April 3, 1890, page 105.5

“Straws,” it is said, “show which way the wind blows,” and this item shows just as plainly the direction which the National Reform mind is taking. It would require only the adoption of the Blair Educational amendment to make a “Protestant university” at Washington, endowed with Uncle Sam’s surplus millions a possibility. But desirable as a great university may be at the national capital, we hope never to see a dollar of Government money appropriated either to a Protestant university or to a Catholic university. The revenues of the country are for quite another purpose than that of endowing denominational institutions of learning, whether Protestant or Papal. The Government should know no Protestants and no Catholics, but only citizens. AMS April 3, 1890, page 105.6

“Religion and the Church” American Sentinel 5, 14.

E. J. Waggoner

When so much is said pro and con about a union of Church and State, it is fitting that we know exactly what is meant by “the Church.” Many people erroneously suppose that the term refers to some particular denomination, as the Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian. But this is not the case. To use the term in that sense would be manifestly unfair. If, in speaking of “the Church,” we should refer to some special denomination, we would hereby imply that no other denomination could be a part of “the Church.” With the exception of the Catholic, nobody uses the term “the Church” with reference to any particular sect. AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.1

In the Bible “the Church” is declared to be the body of Christ. In one place Paul says of Christ that “he is the head of the body, the Church” (Colossians 1:18); and again he says that God “hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body” (Ephesians 1:22, 23). Baptism is universally recognized as the entrance to the Church, as Paul says, “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,” and that this body is Christ, is shown by the words, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.2

“The Church,” then, in the strict sense of the word, is composed of those who are “in Christ,” who have been converted, “born again,” and are consequently “new creatures.” From this it is very evident that, strictly speaking, no one religious sect, nor all of them together, can be called “the Church.” Everybody is willing to admit that in every denomination there are those who are really members of “the Church,” because they are united to Christ; but nobody will claim that all of any denomination are truly Christian. AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.3

Since we cannot always distinguish the true professor from the false one, it is evident that the extent of the Church is known only to him who can read the heart; but it is not convenient always to make this fine distinction in our conversation, neither is it possible; and therefore we speak of all who profess the religion of Jesus as members of his Church. Thus we assume, since we cannot decide, that each individual’s profession is an honest one. AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.4

Now mark this fact: the religion of Jesus, or the profession of that religion, is the distinguishing characteristic of the Church. It is that which makes the Church, and without that there is no Church. AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.5

With this matter clearly in mind, we are prepared to decide for ourselves whether nr not the Religious Amendment party is in favor of a union of the Church and State. And this decision shall be made from the published statements of that party. In the New York Convention of the National Reform Association, held in 1873, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, of Peoria, Ill., said:- AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.6

“It is just possible that the outcry against Church and State may spring rather from hatred to revealed religion than from an intelligent patriotism. But where is the sign, the omen of such Church and State mischief coming upon us? Who will begin and who will finish this union of Church and State? If you think the Roman Catholic can do it in spite of the watchfulness of the Protestant, or that one Protestant sect can do it amid the jealousy of all the other sects; or that all these sects would combine to affect a joint union with the State, you have a notion of human nature and of church nature different from what I have. Church and State in union, then, are forever impossible here, and, were it never so easy, we all repudiate it on principle. There are enduring and ever valid reasons against it. But religion and State is another thing. That is possible. This is a good thing-and that is what we aim to make a feature in our institutions.” AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.7

Exactly, and right here do we see the omen of a union of Church and State. We do not expect that in this country the Catholic Church will be the State Church, nor that any one of the Protestant sects will be honored by an alliance with the State. Neither do we look for all the sects to combine and sink their individual names and thus form a union with the State. But we do look for a desperate effort to unite Church and State, and we claim that this effort will be made by the so-called National Reform Party. And further, we claim that Dr. Edwards has admitted, even while denying it, that such union is the avowed object of that party. We leave it to the candid reader if the short argument at the beginning of this article, defining “the church,” taken in connection with Dr. Edwards’s positive declaration, does not prove that a union of Church and State is the grand object sought by the Amendmentists. AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.8

“But,” says one, “do you not teach that a man should carry his religion into his business? Why then should you object to religion in the State?” We do believe that if a man has religion he should manifest it in his business transactions as well as in church; but if he has it not, we would not have him simulate it. So likewise we believe in religion among individuals everywhere, for only individuals can be religious. No man can be religious for another, neither can one man or any number of men make any man religious. And therefore we are not in favor of upholding religion by the laws of the State. AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.9

Perhaps it may be made a little plainer that religion in the State is Church and State united. We say that the possession of true religion marks one as a real Christian-a member of the church of Christ. The association together of a body of people professing religion constitutes, outwardly at least, a branch of the church of Christ. And so likewise the profession of religion by the State, constitutes a State church. It is all the union of Church and State that has ever existed. And when such a union shall have been affected, what will be the result? Just this: Religion and patriotism will be identical. No matter how pure some of the principles upheld by the laws may be, they can have no vitalizing, spiritual effect on the hearts of the people, because they will stand on the same level as the law defining who are eligible to office, and regulating the length of the presidential term. In short, the incorporation of religion into the laws of the State, marks the decline of religion in the hearts of the people. And this is what the Religious Amendment Party is pledged to bring about. AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.10

Ought not all lovers of pure Christianity to enter a hearty and continued protest against such a proceeding? AMS April 3, 1890, page 107.11

E. J. W.

“Back Page” American Sentinel 5, 14.

E. J. Waggoner

The day following the defeat of his Educational bill, Senator Blair moved a reconsideration. His motion was promptly tabled. The next day Mr. Blair re-introduced the bill, and it is again on the calendar as a portentious piece of unfinished business for next year. AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.1

In a recent article in the Christian Nation, Rev. J. M. Foster gives a new version of the fable of the goose which laid the golden egg. He says: “To take the Sabbath for popular temperance meetings is killing the hen which lays the golden egg, as the foolish woman did in the fable story.” We presume that he must have read the “fable story” of this remarkable hen and of the foolish woman, in the same book out of which Dr. Stacy obtained his information regarding the “bounding kangaroo,” which he described as “springing from his lair” and drawing the life-blood from his victim. AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.2

The statement is made in the Pearl of Days of March 21, that a man has just been fined twenty dollars in Washington City for violation of the Sunday law. How does this correspond with the statement so confidently made only a few weeks since by the friends of the Breckinridge Sunday bill that the District of Columbia had no Sunday law? As was plainly shown in the SENTINEL recently, the District has a very rigid Sunday law, and the purpose of the Breckinridge bill is not to supply such a law where none now exists but to get Congress to take the first step in religious legislation. AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.3

A conference is called to meet in Dayton, Ohio, May 21, 22. The call is to those “who sincerely desire a real and visible union of all true followers of Christ;” and the object is to express “the growing conviction that the existing divisions into sects and denominations is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Gospel, the primitive order of the Church, and the prayer of Christ himself, and is a great hindrance to the world’s conversion.” The union here desired can never be effected by conventions, conferences, or comparisons of errors. It can be accomplished only by the genuine influence of the Spirit of Christ calling together those that are his. And when it is done the world will not be converted. “The world’s conversion” is a will-o’-the-wisp that deludes most of the churches and distracts them from the real sober work of God, to the mechanism of conventions, legislative enactments, and constitutional amendments. This world will never be converted. AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.4

A gentleman wishes space in this paper to prove that Jehovah, the God of the Jews, is not the same Being whom Jesus worshiped. We know that such a proposition cannot be maintained from the Scriptures; and as we recognize no other authority on such questions we cannot consent that our columns shall be used in any such way. The Bible, by which we mean the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, reveals but one God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” To attempt to make it teach anything else would be worse than useless. AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.5

Senator Blair feels considerably put out about the failure of his Educational bill. He blames the Republican party for its defeat, and therefore serves the following notice:- AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.6

I place it on record that there is an end of its political supremacy in this country, and there ought to be. I owe no allegiance to a party that lies in its platform to a Nation, and which chooses to go now and henceforth to its doom as a falsifier. AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.7

We do not know whether the Republican party is thus responsible or not; but accepting it as true, the defeat of that bill was one of the most meritorious acts that a party ever performed. It is to the honor of every senator who voted against it that he did so vote; and it may be spoken to his honor by his children and his children’s children. AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.8

Secretary Crafts, of the American Sabbath Union, so-called, is about to start upon another transcontinental lecture tour in the interests of compulsory Sunday observance. The dates are not positively fixed, but are proposed as follows:- AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.9

April 6, Annapolis or Frederick, Md.; April 7, Hagerstown or Cumberland, Md.; April 8, Parkersburgh, W. Va.; April 9, Portsmouth, or some other city in southern Ohio; April 10, Evansville, or some other town in southern Indiana; April 11, Cairo, or some city in southern Illinois; April 13-16, Arkansas, (Little Rock, Fort Smith, etc.); April 17,Vinita, Ind. Ter.; April 18, Carthage, Mo., or Parsons, Kan.; April 20, 21, two of the following Kansas cities-Lawrence, Leavenworth, Atchison, Topeka, Emporia; April 22, Salina, Kan.; April 23, Newton or Winfield, or Arkansas City or Anthony, all in Kan.; April 24, Hutchinson or Great Bend, both in Kan.; April 25, Trinidad or La Junta, both Col.; April 27, Los Vegas, N. M.; April 28, Santa Fe, N. M.; April 29, Albuqurque, N. M.; Los Angeles, Cal. The return from California will be in June, through Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, the two Dakotas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and northern Ohio. AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.10

We will as soon as possible publish the definite appointments. AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.11

The Houston Post asks: “When will these good Sabbatarians learn that in attacking the Sunday paper they are barking up the wrong tree; that it is the Monday paper which [it is supposed] collides with the Decalogue?” And the Galveston News responds: “Just as soon as they discover that it is the Monday paper which causes people to stay at home and read all day instead of going to Church.” This answer is undoubtedly the truth, for it has more than once been publicly stated in Sunday-law meetings and conventions that the greatest evil of the Sunday paper is not the work which it causes to be done upon that day, but the fact that it keeps people away from church and destroys their interest in spiritual things. This may be true, but it does not follow that the State ought to abolish the Sunday paper any more than it should abolish infidel papers and prohibit all men from speaking against the religion of the majority. AMS April 3, 1890, page 112.12