WHEN the point has been reached where professed Protestants call upon Congress and courts to decide religious controversies for them, and to enact laws enforcing their church dogmas, and where they insist upon calling out the troops to enforce upon the people at the point of the bayonet the recognition and observance of religious observances, then it is time, and it is proper too, to inquire, Is this Protestantism?AMS July 27, 1893, page 233.3

AT the second Diet of Spires, held in 1529, there was presented the Protest, which originated, and gave to those who made it, the title and name of Protestants. And in summarizing this protest the historian states its principles as follows:—AMS July 27, 1893, page 233.4

The principles contained in the celebrated protest of the 19th of April, 1529, constitute the very essence of Protestantism. Now this protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith; the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate; and the second the arbitrary authority of the Church. Instead of these abuses, Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate, and the authority of the Word of God above the visible Church. In the first place, it rejects the civil power in divine things, and says with the prophets and apostles, We must obey God, rather than man. In the presence of the crown of Charles the Fifth, it uplifts the crown of Jesus Christ.—D’Aubigne, Hist. Ref. Book XIII, Chap. VI. Page 521.AMS July 27, 1893, page 233.5

The Sunday managers claim that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, that it is the great charter of their religion, that it is indeed the very citadel of their faith. And they claim to be Protestants. Now did they oppose the intrusion of the civil magistrate into this great question of their religion? No, indeed. Everybody knows that so far were they from opposing any intrusion of the civil magistrate that they actually and by threat required the civil authority to intrude upon the discussion and decision of the question and the enactment of a law requiring its observance; and also required the courts to intrude themselves into it when the act of Congress was called in question; and further called upon the executive to further intrude the civil authority by force of arms. All this they have done before the eyes of all the people.AMS July 27, 1893, page 233.6

NOW as it is the very essence of Protestantism to oppose the intrusion of the civil magistrate in religious things; and as they did not oppose this, it plainly follows that they are not Protestants, and that their movement and work is not Protestantism. As it is the very essence of Protestantism to oppose the intrusion of the civil magistrate in things religious, and as the people engaged in the Sunday movement, professing to be Protestants, not only did not oppose it, but actually required the whole magisterial power of the United States Government under threats to intrude there; it follows that the people who engaged in this Sunday-law movement are not Protestants at all, and that neither their movement nor their work if Protestantism in any sense.AMS July 27, 1893, page 233.7

SECONDLY, it is the essence of Protestantism to oppose “the arbitrary authority of the Church.”AMS July 27, 1893, page 233.8

NOW, for Sunday observance in any way there is no authority but the arbitrary authority of the Church. The Sunday managers not only know this, but they openly say it. The American Sabbath Union itself in one of its own official publications, in answer to a call for a citation to a command of God for Sunday observance, plainly says: “We admit there is no such command.” The Women’s Christian Temperance Union, also in one of its own publications, inquiring about the change of day from the seventh to the first, says that Christ “did not command it.” There are other such statements also—too many to cite here. Well then, as they know that there is no command of God for Sunday observance; and as the Church power only is that which requires its observance; this is proof in itself that the only authority for it is the arbitrary authority of the Church.AMS July 27, 1893, page 233.9

YET more than this. Even though Christ had commanded it, for the Church to require, and enforce upon men its observance by law—this would be nothing else than to assert the arbitrary authority of the Church. Because, Christ himself has said, “If any man hear my words and believe not, I judge [condemn] him not.” As therefore Christ leaves every man free to observe his words or not, for the Church to compel any man to do it, is to put herself above Christ and do what he does not do. And this, in itself, is only to assert the arbitrary authority of the Church. So that whether there be a command of God for Sunday observance or not, in this matter the result is the same; to do as the professed Protestant churches of the United States have done and are doing, in requiring Sunday observance of all by law, is nothing else than to assert the rightfulness of the arbitrary authority of the Church.AMS July 27, 1893, page 233.10

BUT it is the essence of Protestantism to oppose the arbitrary authority of the Church. Therefore, as the professed Protestants of the United States have not opposed the arbitrary authority of the Church in this matter of Sunday observance, it plainly follows that they are not Protestants. And as it is the essence of Protestantism to oppose the arbitrary authority of the Church, and as these professed Protestants, not only did not oppose it, but actually asserted it and still maintain it, it unmistakably follows that they are not Protestants at all; and that neither their movement nor their work is Protestantism in any sense.AMS July 27, 1893, page 233.11

THIS proves that to oppose the Sunday movement in all its parts, to oppose Sunday laws in any and all their phases, to oppose and deny the right of congresses, or courts, or executives, to touch the question of Sunday observance, or any other religious question in any way, and to reject entirely the authority of any such action when it is asserted—this and this only is Protestantism. Even admitting that Sunday were the Sabbath, those who observe it can be Protestants only by opposing all intrusion of the magistrate into the question; by opposing all attempt of the Church to require its recognition or observance by law, and by asserting their own individual right to observe it as they choose, without any dictation or interference from anybody. This alone is Protestantism.AMS July 27, 1893, page 233.12

THIS is the living, present, absolute truth. There is no discount on it at all. “Protestantism sets the power of conscience above a magistrate,” even though the magistrate calls himself a Christian and a Protestant, and proposes to enforce the “Christian Sabbath.” “Protestantism sets the authority of the Word of God above the visible Church,” even though the Church,” even though the Church calls itself Protestant. Protestantism “rejects the civil power in divine things, and says with the prophets and apostles: ‘We must obey God rather than man,’” and that too as God commands it, and not as man commands it, nor as man says that God commands it. Protestantism opposes and rejects every human intrusion, whether of the magistrate or the ecclesiastic, between the soul and Jesus Christ, and everlastingly maintains the divine right of the individual to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience exercised at his own free choice.AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.1

THIS is Protestantism; and the AMERICAN SENTINEL is unqualifiedly and uncompromisingly Protestant. The religious people who publish it are the same. The excellent work in which the SENTINEL and the people who publish it are engaged is genuine Protestantism. That work, as relates to this question, is the constant, unwavering, uncompromising, opposition to every form of Sunday legislation, or any other religious legislation, and to all interference or control of ecclesiastics in the affairs of Government. Protestants are needed to-day to protest against this apostate Protestantism which is now carrying things with so high a hand. Come along!AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.2

HERE are some words of as much solemn weight as ever, and as true to-day, and of this Sunday movement, as they ever were at any other time or of any other movement:AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.3

“The Reformation was accomplished in the name of a spiritual principle. It had proclaimed for its teacher the Word of God; for salvation, faith; for king, Jesus Christ; for arms, the Holy Ghost; and had by these very means rejected all worldly elements. Rome had been established by ‘the law of a carnal commandment;’ the Reformation, by ‘the power of an endless life.’AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.4

“The gospel of the reformers had nothing to do with the world and with politics. While the Roman hierarchy had become a matter of diplomacy and a court intrigue, the Reformation was destined to exercise no other influence over princes and people than that which proceeds from the gospel of peace.AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.5

“If the Reformation, having attained a certain point, became untrue to its nature, began to parley and temporize with the world, and ceased thus to follow up the spiritual principle that it had so loudly proclaimed, it was faithless to God and to itself. Henceforward its decline was at hand.AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.6

“It is impossible for a society to prosper, if it be unfaithful to the principles it lays down. Having abandoned what constituted its life, it can find naught but death.AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.7

“It was God’s will that this great truth should be inscribed on the very threshold of the temple he was then raising in the world, and a striking contrast was to make the truth stand gloriously prominent.”AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.8

“One portion of the reform was to seek alliance of the world, and in this alliance find a destruction full of desolation.AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.9

“Another portion looking up to God, was haughtily to reject the arm of the flesh, and by this very act of faith secure a noble victory.AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.10

“If three centuries have gone astray, it is because they were unable to comprehend so holy and so solemn a lesson.”—D’Aubigne, Id., Book XIV., Chap. 1.AMS July 27, 1893, page 234.11

“Back Page” American Sentinel 8, 30, p. 240.

ATJ

THE Christian Statesman says: “A greater peril to the Sabbath even than Sunday opening at Chicago, is the widespread Sabbath-breaking of Christians. It is the Achan that causes our defeats and delays our victory.” It is a truly deplorable thing that professed Christians so very generally disregard the Sabbath. Even the editors of the Statesman observe another day and heap contempt on the day the Lord sanctified and blessed. It is little wonder that the flocks go astray when the shepherds wander from right paths. The widespread agitation of the Sabbath question is rapidly destroying regard for Sunday, for it is revealing the fact that it is without divine authority. But as this becomes more apparent the demand for human law to bolster up the tottering institution becomes more imperative. Ephraim is joined to his idol.AMS July 27, 1893, page 240.1

A SECULAR paper remarks the “the seizure of an Aztec god at Xohiltepec, in Mexico, by the Catholic Archbishop, has stirred up the god’s Indian devotees, who threaten to go on the war-path in his behalf. He is of stone, and in form is partly human, partly aquiline. We presume that the archbishop must have believed he had a right to seize the god of the Aztec religion; and yet it is a fact that, under the Constitution of Mexico, all religions are tolerated there, so that the Indians are as free to worship their god as the Chinese, for example, are to worship theirs.” And then this paper, which is none other than the Sun of this city, shows its utter lack of appreciation of the real principle involved, by saying: “We do not see, however, that the Indians of Xohiltepec need to do battle for their god. They can make another.”AMS July 27, 1893, page 240.2

A ZEALOUS Sunday preacher thinks that the Georgia railroads are in the hands of a receiver because the frown of God is upon them for running Sunday trains. It is, of course, a little difficult to prove a negative in such a case; but will the gentleman who advances the theory explain the accident to the Sunday school excursion train near East Aurora, N.Y., on Monday, the 17th inst., in which twenty-two persons were injured? Have Sunday schools become such wicked things that the Lord has to maim those who attend them? or was this particular school alone at fault? And while the gentleman is about it he might devote a little attention to the wind that demolished Sam Jones’ tent wherein he was preaching on a recent Sunday. Is preaching in a tent on Sunday also wicked?AMS July 27, 1893, page 240.3

GOVERNMENTS have in past ages assumed to dominate the realm of conscience; the sequel is the history of the Inquisition. The thumbscrew, the rack, and the fagot are inseparable from the theory that civil government has any jurisdiction whatever in religious things. The advocates of religious legislation may affirm that they would not carry it so far as that, but it is impossible for them to stop short of it without abandoning their theory. It is for this reason that we oppose all laws touching religious questions and controversies. They are the beginnings of intolerance. If Sunday were not regarded as sacred there would be no demand for laws enforcing its observance. It is not physical rest but spiritual worship that is the object of Sunday laws. It is therefore a matter that the State has no right to touch. It is for this reason that we oppose any and all Sunday laws.AMS July 27, 1893, page 240.4

July 20, 1893

August 3, 1893