ATJ
AMS this number of our paper is dated the day before Christmas, it might be expected that we should have something to say about the institution. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.1
If such be the expectation of any, they shall not be disappointed. We are willing to contribute what we may for the benefit of those who would celebrate this universal festival. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.2
We say this universal festival, not because we would be understood to say that Christianity is universal; but because the period now referred to as the “Christmas season” has been celebrated from time immemorial by all nations. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.3
That which is now particularly celebrated as the Christmas, is the remains of the ancient festival whose celebration covered a longer period of time. This festival season was celebrated in honor of the Sun; and December 25 especially in gladness and rejoicing at his annual birth and the beginning of his return victorious over the powers of darkness or night. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.4
In the reigns of Domitian and Trajan, Rome formally adopted from Persia the feast of the Persian sun-god Mithras, with December 25 as the birth festival of the unconquered sun—Natales invicti Solis. In the Louvre at Paris is the original of a mythological representation of this, which was found at Rome in a vault under the Capitol. It is entitled “Mithra Sacrificing the Bull.” The central object of the piece is Mithra in a cavern sacrificing a bull. As already stated, Mithra represented the Sun; the bull was the symbol of the powers of night. The blood of the bull was to impart the power of regeneration. At the right hand in the cavern stands the Genius of Night with his torch turned down, extinguished. At the left stands the Genius of Day, with his torch held up, aflame. An inscription on the body of the bull reads: “To Mithra, the invincible Sun-God.” The piece is intended to represent the victory of the Sun over the powers of darkness. This sacrifice was made annually at the winter solstice—the period that is now Christmas-time. Thus this annual festival was an established thing in the State and City of Rome. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.5
About the middle of the fourth century, the church of Rome adopted this festival, making the birthday of the Sun, December 25, the birthday of Christ. And in a few years the celebration of this festival of the sun had spread among the churches throughout the whole empire—east as well as west. In one of the homilies of Chrysostom, supposed to have been delivered on this festival day in A.D. 386, he expresses his own pleasure and “congratulates the people upon the progress made, through their zeal in establishing this new festival, which they had borrowed from the Western Church”; and “seems to speak of it as a custom imported from the West within ten years.” The perverse-minded clergy readily sanctioned the practice and relieved all doubts, with the assurance that the festival which had been formerly celebrated as the birth of the real sun was a type of the festival of the birth of Christ, the Sun of Righteousness. And thus was established the Church festival of Christmas. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.6
There are other items connected with the celebration of the day, whose origin and meaning are also worth mentioning. One of these is the Christmas tree. Just as the day itself and its celebration were adopted from pagan Rome, the use of the tree was adopted from the pagan Germans. And just as the day is a relic of sun-worship, so also is the tree. In The Ladies Home Journal, for December, Mrs. Lyman Abbott says of “The Christmas Tree“: “A German friend tells me that the true Christmas tree is ‘not a mere show, decorated for the momentary amusement of children. It is a sublime symbol of the soul life of the Germanic people for a thousand years.’ ... The tree itself ‘is the celestial sun-tree.’” AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.7
Another item is the decoration of the houses and churches with vines, branches of trees, etc. This is derived from the sun-worshiping Druids of Britain. An early English writer says that the “trimmyng of the temples with hangyngs, flowers, boughs, and garlands, was taken of the heathen people, whiche decked their idols and houses with suche array.” The ivy particularly was used in honor of Bacchus. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.8
Thus it is that Christmas day, the celebration of the day, and the appurtenances thereto, are all heathen and only relics of sun-worship. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.9
OUR readers will remember an article by Dr. H. L. Wayland, which not long ago was reprinted in the SENTINEL, from the Independent, in which he criticised the Canadian Sunday law by which some Seventh-day Adventist preachers were fined and imprisoned. Dr. Wayland rightly enough spoke of it as religious persecution. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.10
Dr. W. H. Withrow, of Toronto, in a letter to the Independent, undertakes to defend the Canadian Sunday law, and to justify the persecutions that were inflicted by it. He says of the preachers who were fined and imprisoned, that “their religion had nothing to do with it. It would have been the same if they had been agnostics or Jews. The law simply forbids Sunday labor, and the law must be obeyed whether men are barbers, saloon-keepers, or Seventh-day Adventists.” AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.11
This is the argument that is usually made in such cases; but instead of being in any sense a legitimate argument, it is a sheer subterfuge. This is not to say that all who use it have thought enough upon it, intentionally to use it as a subterfuge. Though it is quite clear that many of them have not cared to think enough on the subject to know whether it is a subterfuge or not. They know that such is the law, and that it enforces exactly what they believe religiously; and that is as far as they care to inquire. Yet all that any person needs to do in order to see that it is not only a subterfuge but one of the meanest subterfuges that was ever employed, is only to think about two steps from where he professes proudly to stand. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.12
All those people profess to believe in religious freedom. They profess to hold that every man has the right to believe or dissent from any doctrine, dogma, ordinance, rite, or institution of any church, as he may choose for himself. They profess to be proud that they believe in such freedom as this. Yes, they even boast that they are the divinely-appointed conservators of such religious liberty as this. AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.13
Yet, while loudly professing to recognize this right as inalienable, under cover of this subterfuge they deny the right and actually attempt to sweep it entirely away. This subterfuge is that they get church dogmas or institutions embodied in the law, and then demand obedience to the law, throwing upon the dissenter the odium of “lawlessness and disrespect for the constituted authorities,” while they pose as the champions of “law and order,” the “conservators of the State, and the stay of society”! AMS December 24, 1896, page 401.14
Of all the pretenses that were ever employed, this is perhaps the sublest [sic.]. By it throughout the Middle Ages, anything and everything that the church could invent was forced upon the people. Its slimy trail can be traced throughout the history of the “Protestant” sects, in thus forcing upon the people such peculiar institutions as were characteristic of the sect that could obtain controls of the law. And now it is made to flourish again, by all the sects together, in thus forcing upon the people the one thing in which they are all agreed, and in which they have obtained control of the law, the observance of Sunday, “the Christian sabbath.” AMS December 24, 1896, page 402.1
Sunday, not only according to their own showing, but by every other fair showing that can be made, is a religious institution, a church institution, only. This they all know as well as they know anything. And yet they work constantly to get this church institution fixed, and more firmly fixed, in the law, with penalties attached that are more worthy of barbarism than of civilization; and then, when anybody objects to it, they all cry out that “it is not a question of religion, it is simply a question of law. We are not asking any religious observance; all that we ask is respect for law”!! AMS December 24, 1896, page 402.2
The Christian and Protestant answer to all this is that neither the Sunday institution nor any other religious or ecclesiastical institution has any right to a place in the law. And even when it is put into the law, this does not take away the right of dissent. The divine right of dissent from religious or ecclesiastical institutions abides ever the same, whether the institution is out of the law or in the law. So long as the religious rite or institution is not in the law, they themselves acknowledge the inalienable right of every man to disregard it utterly. Whereas, as soon as they get the dogma fixed in the law, they deny the right of anybody to disregard it at all: though it is precisely the religious thing that it was before. But instead of the right to disregard it being taken away by this change of position of the church dogma, the truth is that when the institution is fixed in the law, the right of dissent then extends to that law. The subterfuge cannot destroy the right. AMS December 24, 1896, page 402.3
From the church organizations the courts have caught up this cry. And, though acknowledging that the Sunday institution is religious; that it is enacted and enforced at the will of the church; and that the logic of it is the union of Church and State; yet they insist that, as it is in the law, and the law is for the public good, no right of dissent can be recognized; but the dissenter “may be made to suffer for his defiance by persecutions, if you call them so, on the part of the great majority.” AMS December 24, 1896, page 402.4
This argument is as old as is the contest for the right of the free exercise of religious belief. It was the very position occupied by Rome when the disciples of Christ were sent into the world to preach religious freedom to all mankind. Religious observances were enforced by the law. The Christians asserted and maintained the right to dissent from all such observances, and, in fact, from every one of the religious observances of Rome, and to believe religiously for themselves, though in so doing they totally disregarded the laws, which, on the part of the Roman State, were held to be beneficial to the population. Then, as now, it was held that, though religious belief was the foundation of the custom, yet this was no objection to it, because it had become a part of the legal system of the government, and was enforced by the State for its own good. But Christianity then refused to recognize any validity in any such argument, and so it does now. AMS December 24, 1896, page 402.5
When paganism was supplanted by the papacy in the Roman Empire, the same argument was again brought forth to sustain the papal observances which were enforced by imperial law; and through the whole period of papal supremacy Christianity still refused to recognize any validity whatever in the argument. AMS December 24, 1896, page 402.6
In short, this argument—this “miserable excuse”—whether made by churches or by courts, is the same old serpent (Revelation 12:9, 12, 14) that tortured the Christians to death under pagan Rome; that burnt John Huss at Constance, and Michael Servetus at Geneva; that whipped, and banished the Baptists, and banished and hanged the Quakers, in New England. Whether used by the Roman State and the Catholic Church, or by other States and other churches; whether in the early centuries, or in these last years of the nineteenth century, of the Christian era; that argument is ever the same old serpent, and Christianity has always refused to recognize any validity whatever in it, and it always will. AMS December 24, 1896, page 402.7
ATJ
THE “National Reform” movement is under the impression that it is combating the papacy. For some time past its official organ, the Christian Statesman, has devoted considerable space to an exposition of the evils of that un-American and antichristian system. It seems not to be aware that those same evils are paralleled in its own system of “National Reform.” AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.1
The Statesman of November 28, contains an article on “Romanism and Loyalty,” which discusses the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility in its relation to loyalty to the State. The Statesman seems to have at least a dim perception of the important bearing of this papal doctrine upon the “National Reform” doctrine that the United States is a “Christian nation;” for after setting forth the papal position, it says:— AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.2
And now comes the consistent Roman Catholic demanding that our nation must go to the Roman Catholic Church to know what is right and what is wrong. He insists that this is doing nothing more than to assert God’s sovereignty over the nation; that Christ speaks to the nations through his infallible vicegerent on earth. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.3
Intelligent Roman Catholics can see plainly enough the logic of the “National Reform” movement. They know that if carried to its conclusion as the National Reformers hope to see it, a situation will be reached in which logic and consistency will demand that this nation shall defer to the Roman Catholic Church as the proper interpreter of the divine will in civil affairs. Already they are beginning to call attention to the logical demands of the situation, and standing upon this vantage ground, Rome hopes, not unreasonably either, when the opportune day shall arrive, to gain a signal victory. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.4
The papal church alone offers to the world a human authority which is recognized as “infallible” in the interpretation of the will of God. It matters not that the infallibility of this authority is disputed. It alone claims to be infallible, and is believed actually to be infallible by a large division of the nominally Christian Church. If an authoritative human interpreter of the divine will must be found, the weight of evidence, as between all human authorities, cannot lead elsewhere than to the papacy. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.5
And this authoritative human interpreter of the will of God is exactly what the “National Reform” system demands. That system maintains that the United States is a “Christian nation”—a “sovereign moral being in direct relations with God, capable of knowing his moral law given in the Bible.” It treats the State as a personal entity possessing moral accountability, and therefore bound to fulfill the law of God. But the Government operates only through human agencies. It must operate through these or cease to be a Government. It has a chief executive, a Supreme Court, and a supreme legislative body; and these three branches of the Government exercise supreme authority in the departments over which they are placed. Without such a recognized supreme human authority, no branch of the Government would be complete or capable of performing its functions. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.6
The national Government could not proceed at all without a President, a Congress, and a Supreme Court. If then the Government is to act in a religious capacity, it must have a supreme human authority to decide what its action shall be in this sphere, as in the domain of the secular. And as it must act as a “Christian nation,” it must have a supreme human authority to decide what is the will of God, as revealed in the Christian religion. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.7
The National Reformers themselves admit, under pressure, that this must be so. Dr. David McAllister, the spokesman of the Reform party, in the hearing given last March by a committee of Congress on the proposed “Christ an amendment” to the Constitution, was forced to just this position, as appears in the following extract from the official report:— AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.8
MR. BURTON—Is not this the theory: Each man regards the day he believes to be the Sabbath, and the Government protects him in his worship from disturbance or interference? AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.9
DR. McALLISTER—Not only must this be the case in regard to every man, but the State and the nation must decide for themselves whether they will keep one day or not. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.10
MR. CONNOLLY—Suppose the Bible has already settled that question, how could any act of Congress interfere with it if that is to be in the Constitution. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.11
DR. MCALLISTER—Because we must interpret the Bible. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.12
“And now”—to quote the Statesman again—“comes the consistent Roman Catholic demanding that our nation must go to the Roman Catholic Church to know what is right and wrong.” Of course; what else could be expected from the consistent Roman Catholic? and what could be more consistent and logical from the “National Reform” standpoint? If the nation must have a supreme human interpreter of the Bible to instruct it in keeping the law of God, could it do better than to turn to that church which claims to be infallible in her religious teaching, and is accepted by millions of its citizens as infallible? It would be no slight advantage to the nation to possess an infallible Congress, Supreme Court, or President. Why, then, should our Government pass by the opportunity to secure an “infallible” guide in the important sphere of religion, to which it now stands fully committed? AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.13
We repeat, that as between all human authorities to which the Government may turn for guidance in the performance of religious duties, the preëminence lies with the papacy. The papal church has acted in that capacity for centuries; she is the oldest “Christian” denomination, as well as the largest in this country; and, as we have said, millions of the citizens of this Government already believe in her infallibility and in her claim of right to dictate conduct to the civil power, if any other church or religious body is chosen to interpret the divine will for the nation, the same objections will apply to it as to the papacy, without any of the advantages which can be urged in the latter’s favor. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.14
If any further evidence were needed that the whole tendency of the movement to make the United States a Christian nation, is to place this Government under the domination of the papacy, it is supplied by recent events in the shape of official acts of the Government itself, in each of its three departments. In February, 1892, the Supreme Court declared that the United States “is a Christian nation;” and the joy with which this utterance was hailed by the “National Reform” party, and the use they have made of it, shows that, whether due to the influence of National Reform sentiment or not, it is directly in the line of what their movement aims to secure. And if any question might remain as to the precise religious significance of the Supreme Court’s declaration, it would be answered by the references made in the decision to the “Christian” character of Sunday laws, and by the fact that this same court has upheld Sunday laws as a proper exercise of the legislative power of the State, on the ground that they are for the benefit of mankind. Bearing in mind that Sunday as a “Christian” day originated with the Roman Catholic church, and is pointed to by that church as the special sign of her spiritual authority, there remains no room for doubt that if “this is a Christian nation” by virtue of its religious laws and its belief in the sacredness of Sunday, it is a Roman Catholic Christian nation and nothing else. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.15
Again, in August, 1892, Congress legislated upon the question of which day is the Sabbath, and decided that “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” is the Sabbath with the meaning of the fourth commandment. In this the supreme legislative body of the nation took its stand squarely on papal ground. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.16
And finally, the nation’s chief executive, in the latest national Thansgiving [sic.] proclamation, sets his official seal of approval to the doctrine that the United States is a Christian nation, thereby investing Thanksgiving with the character of a “Christian” holy day. But “Christian” holy days other than those set apart in Scripture constitute an exclusive feature of the papal religion. They have the stamp of the papacy upon them, and no other. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.17
It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the National Reform movement is not combating the papacy in any way except on paper, and that it is actually in perfect harmony with the papacy, and that all its work is only in the line of justifying the latter and strengthening her hands for the accomplishment of her evil designs. The two systems are in principle one and the same, and equally ruinous in their results. AMS December 24, 1896, page 403.18
ATJ
A WAMSHINGTON, D. C., correspondent sends us the following: “A delegation of members of the Anti-saloon League called on the President and had a conversation with him with reference to proposed religious legislation. They referred to the criticisms that had been made in the papers with reference to his Thanksgiving proclamation; and as they reported in their public meetings, the President said emphatically that this is indeed a Christian nation, and it was only a matter of time when everyone would have to come to accept the situation.” Evidently it was due to no oversight on the President’s part that his Thanksgiving proclamation for 1895 read as it did. AMS December 24, 1896, page 408.1
A WESTERN religio political journal raises the query how far a Christian can follow the divine injunction to “turn the other cheek” to the smiter before reaching the point where “forbearance ceases to be a virtue.” It mentions by way of illustration that a certain minister in an Iowa town had been active recently in securing the indictment of a druggist for violation of the prohibition law, whereupon the druggist becoming angry, undertook one day to chastise the preacher upon the street, but the latter drew a revolver and shot him, inflicting a dangerous wound. This was a “regrettable” outcome, the journal says, but it adds that “it is a stern question how long the champions of law and order may be expected to stand dumb before the insults and assaults of law-breakers and assassins.” AMS December 24, 1896, page 408.2
Was this a case of “Christian” shooting? And if the wound proved fatal—as perchance it did—was the druggist killed in a “Christian” way? This may not have been any better for him than if the shot had been fired by a highway robber, but the minister thereby avenged the “insults” offered him and perchance avoided bodily injury. AMS December 24, 1896, page 408.3
How far did Jesus Christ go in submitting without resentment to the insults and violence offered him? How long did he suffer them before striking his persecutors to the ground? It might be profitable for those who profess to do all things in His name, to consider these questions in their bearing upon this subject. AMS December 24, 1896, page 408.4