ATJ
THE word from Washington, D. C., is that there are thousands of petitions being sent to Congress from all over the country, though far the most of them are from Pennsylvania, calling for the passage of the bill providing a Sunday law for the District of Columbia. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.1
We should like to know what business, yea, what right, the people of the States have to meddle in the matter of laws for the District of Columbia. The people of the District of Columbia are the ones whose business and whose right this is. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.2
Why do not those Pennsylvania people send over petitions to the legislatures of California and Idaho, calling upon them to enact Sunday laws for their respective States?—Simply because they have no right to. To do so would be to meddle in matters for the people of California and Idaho themselves to attend to. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.3
It is precisely so with the District of Columbia. The people of Pennsylvania and other States have no more right to send such petitions to Congress—the legislature of the District of Columbia—than they would have to send them to the legislature of California. If they were to send such petitions to the legislature of California, they would, in short order, be given to understand that they had better attend to their own business and let the business of other people alone. And that is what the legislature of the District of Columbia ought to give them to understand. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.4
They need to be told this: for it is the life principle of the Government of the States and of the United States. It is the principle of self-government—government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Each one is to govern himself and let other people alone. It is the principle of the Declaration of Independence—men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, by the Declaration, all men are equal in the right to the pursuit of happiness. But these people engage in the pursuit of happiness for themselves and for everybody else besides. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.5
THERE is presented before the people of this nation a most singular, a most mysterious, thing. We beg to be allowed to state the case, and then leave it with the reader for him to explain if he can. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.6
Almost all the professed Christian elements in the whole country are combined in a determined effort to have Sunday recognized and made a fixture in national law, as the Sabbath. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.7
They propose that all within the jurisdiction of the national power, shall be compelled by such law to recognize and observe the Sunday as the Sabbath. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.8
Then, from this national example, they intend to carry the like thing into all the States and Territories of the Union, and thus by law require the recognition and observance of Sunday as the Sabbath throughout the whole nation. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.9
The leaders in this movement, and the vast majority of the others engaged in it, cite the fourth commandment of the Decalogue as the source of their authority for requiring thus the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.10
The fourth commandment says, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.11
This commandment has been officially called for an read from the Bible precisely in the words here printed in the presence of the United States Senate, as the authority, and as containing the reasons, for requiring by national law, the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath. AMS January 14, 1897, page 17.12
This commandment says plainly, “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” And it is just as plain that this is the seventh day of the week. The seventh day to be observed is the seventh day in succession from the one which God observed: and that seventh day which God observed was the seventh day of the week; because the week was the only period of time then in existence of which there could possibly be any seventh day. AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.1
Therefore, as this commandment definitely cites the rest of God on the seventh day at the close of the six days’ creative process; and as there was no period of time but the week, of which it could possibly be the seventh day; it is absolutely impossible that this commandment to men to observe the seventh day can refer to any other than the seventh day of the week. AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.2
But Sunday is the first day of the week. Those who are urging it upon all people as the Sabbath know that it is the first day of the week. The bill now before Congress to enforce its observance in the District of Columbia, as well as the laws of the States, calls it the first day of the week. AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.3
Now the singular and mysterious thing to which we call attention is, that those who are calling for national law enforcing the observance of this first day of the week, cite the fourth commandment as the source of their authority for requiring its observance as the Sabbath, while that commandment plainly enjoins the observance of the seventh day of the week, and cannot possibly refer to any other day. AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.4
Another phase of this singular and mysterious thing, is that those people hold that the fourth commandment is the word of God. Yet they have so little regard for that word, that they hesitate not at all to substitute a day of their own choice for the day which, even upon their own claim, God has named. They totally ignore the day which the word of God has plainly designated, and boldly endeavor to make this same word of God enjoin the observance of a day to which it cannot possibly apply. AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.5
How much regard, then, have those people for the authority of that word as the word of God? How much regard have they for the authority of God, which they themselves say is the substance and life of that word as the word of God? Do they really believe that when the Lord spoke His law He had sufficient clearness of mind to know what He wanted to say; and sufficient ability of expression to say what He meant? If they do really believe this, then will they say that He intentionally spoke so ambiguously when He said the seventh day is the Sabbath, that nobody ever caught the correct idea until two hundred years ago when the Puritans discovered that when the Lord said the seventh day is the Sabbath He meant that the first day is the Sabbath? “To whom, then, will ye liken me, saith the Lord.” AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.6
If the people of the District of Columbia, or of the States, should treat the laws which these people frame enjoining the observance of the first day of the week, as they themselves treat the law which God has spoken enjoining the observance of the seventh day of the week, what would those people themselves say to that? Everybody knows that such a thing would not be accepted for one moment. It would be denounced as an assertion of self-opinion, and disrespectful to the authority of the Government that is the life of the law. AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.7
Is it not then a singular and mysterious thing, that people will claim that a certain word is the word of God, and at the same time treat it as they would not allow for a moment that the word of men should be treated? Shall the words of men be considered as of more force and value than the word of God? “Shall mortal man be more just than God?” AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.8
God is the God of judgment. Just and right is He. He will bring every work into judgment with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil: and it will “be judged by the law.” And when He does rise up to judgment, will He regard lightly this light regard for His law? In that day that law will be interpreted by the Judge: not by self-opinionated men. AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.9
Now in view of the fact that the people who are endeavoring to force upon all the nation the observance of the first day of the week as the Sabbath, cite as the authority for it the law which enjoins the observance only of the seventh day of the week, while at the same time they hold that law to be the law of God, and that there is to be a judgment of God at which every man shall give account of himself to God and “be judged by the law,” is it not a most singular and most mysterious thing that they will act as they do in the matter of the word and the authority of God? AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.10
ATJ
MR. MOODY, the evangelist, has said something calculated to shock the church congregations of New York City out of their moral complacency. What he says of the spiritual condition of this city is of course just as applicable to any other section of the country. AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.1
Mr. Moody said before a audience in Carnegie Hall, that Christ would be no more welcome should he return to the earth to-day than he was when he came to the Jews in Palestine nineteen centuries ago. “Nineteen hundred years,” said the evangelist, “have rolled away since Christ found no place on earth to lay his head. His gospel is now preached in all parts of the world, but is it not a fact that even now there is not room on earth for the Son of God, and no nation wants him? AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.2
“Does America want Him? It is a Christian nation. England claims to be the most Christian nation, but if a man stood up in Parliament to-morrow to advocate—could it be possible—that Christ should come in person to rule England, he would be hooted down. France, Germany, Italy and Spain are Christian nations. Is there room for Him in either? AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.3
“Has not Christianity settled down to be a mere lifeless form? Suppose it were possible to petition Christ to return to earth to rule us. How many of the people of New York would sign the petition? Would business men sign it? They would have to change their methods first. Would stock-brokers sign it? It would smash up their business pretty quick. Would saloon-keepers sign it? They would find their occupation gone should they do so. AMS January 14, 1897, page 18.4
“I’ll bring the question closer home to you. How about the churches? Do they want Him? Pride and form and dignity in the church would have to step down. AMS January 14, 1897, page 19.1
“But we can bring the question even closer to us. How many ladies here would vote to have Him come? I think but few hands would be raised should the vote be taken this afternoon. AMS January 14, 1897, page 19.2
“There is hardly a name to unpopular in the world to-day as that of Jesus Christ. Thank God there are a few who have stepped out of the world who would welome [sic.] Him!” AMS January 14, 1897, page 19.3
Mr. Moody knows, and knows so well that he does not hesitate to state it to his congregations, that the “Christian nations” of to-day do not want Christ any more than did the Jewish nation of old. Even the church-going people, he says, do not constitute an exception in this matter. And what Mr. Moody knows, thousands of others in the Church know as well. AMS January 14, 1897, page 19.4
What meaning, then, is there in the movement, in which the churches and religious societies are now all engaged, to make this a “Christian nation” by the exercise of their political power. If the churches themselves are not Christian enough to want Christ with them as Mr. Moody described, how can they make anything else Christian? And if they cannot make the nation Christian by the religious stamp which they propose to put upon it, what else can they do, but to make it antichristian? What else was ever done to a nation by giving it a religious stamp? AMS January 14, 1897, page 19.5
This is the plain meaning of the movement to make the United States Government profess religion. AMS January 14, 1897, page 19.6
ATJ
IN our discussion of the Sunday bill now before Congress, and which we reprinted in our issue of last week, we called attention to the evident fact that it did not in any sense express the real purposes of its framers. We pointed out that it had been toned down to the lowest point, expressly to secure its passage if possible, and then, having the Government committed to the principle, afterward bring forward their real purposes and secure their embodiment in law. It will be of interest to our readers to have the statements of the framers of the bill themselves to this effect. AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.1
December 18, there was held in Washington, D. C., the National Convention of the “Woman’s Sabbath Alliance,” in which the discussion and endorsement of this bill was the principal business. But two resolutions were passed. The first was to ask “pastors of churches to give at least one service during the year to the subject of Sabbath observance.” The other one was the following: AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.2
“(2) Resolved, That we endorse the bill proposed by the Churchman’s League and approved by the District Commissioners for the observance of the Sabbath in the District, and pray that it, or some other, adapted to the needs of the city, may become a law.” AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.3
The first speaker was Bishop Satterlee, who spoke of the bill as follows:— AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.4
“I want to say a few words about this bill that has just been introduced into Congress. Of course this country is made up of many men of many minds; and I think that all civilization tells us that it is very unwise for a government to pass a law that the people will not, or cannot fulfill—that will become inoperative. Lord Salisbury said a very profound truth in one very small sentence some years ago when he said, ‘One of the first points for a ruler to consider, or a Prime minister to consider, is not what is ideally best, but what is best under the present circumstances.’ You will probably find that the bill will not satisfy the ladies, and it does not satisfy its promoters; but it is the best we can get. This bill, it seems to me, is very good. It does not satisfy me, or you; but if we all unite upon it, let us use all our influence in its favor. It will be a great gain if this bill is passed, at least I think so. Perhaps those who are behind me will speak in a different way regarding it.” AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.5
Bishop Satterlee was followed by Bishop Hurst, who, however, avoided saying anything about the bill. In this he was wise. Bishop Hurst was followed by Professor Whitman, who, of the bill and what is expected of it, said:— AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.6
“There is no more important thing for us to bear in mind than that the things we are doing in Washington are known and read of all men. Most cities can do things for themselves—by themselves. The doings of Washington are National doings. It is therefore a matter of great satisfaction to all of us who are interested in the well being, who are interested practically in the well being, the enterprise, the best good of this country, to feel that all Christian people, all well disposed people, are joining hands in the interest of the bill that has been spoken of this morning. AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.7
“I endorse very heartily the words that have been spoken. The bill is not an ideal bill considered from the Christian point of view; but it is a very much better bill than it seemed likely we could get. We can get no farther in this matter than we can carry the common sense of the community. Far better to have no law at all on the question of the Sabbath, than that we should have a law on the Sabbath that is continually violated. AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.8
“A law generally marks the highest point that sentiment has reached. The utmost that a law can serve ordinarily is as a sort of bulwark. Every statute must serve as a sort of safeguard and give us a point to which we can continually refer, that we can keep the public sentiment up to that point. I rejoice therefore that it has been possible to enlist Christian men and women of all beliefs in our city in defence of the bill to which reference has been made—for the names that are behind this bill area simply representative names. AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.9
“This is important. It is a significant thing. Public attention has been called to the fact that the President’s proclamation this year at Thanksgiving is the first pronounced Christian recognition of Thanksgiving which our Government has ever made. And I know no other way to account for this advance over previous years than as an appeal to the general sentiment which has been growing in favor of the recognition of God as the central fact of our national life. I think the proclamation is at once a repetition of that sentiment, and a concession to it. AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.10
“It is of the utmost importance for all these reasons, that we push on in the lines indicated.” AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.11
So, then, “A bill to further protect the first day of the week as a day of rest” and which distinctly declares that “This Act shall not be construed ... to prevent the sale of malt and spiritous liquors as now provided by law”—that ” is a very good bill.” Yes, it undoubtedly is a very good bill for the liquor traffic. And “it will be a great gain, if this bill is passed.” Yes, it will certainly be a great gain to the liquor business. For when everybody is forbidden, under penalty of from five to fifty dollars, to engage in any kind of honest labor, play, sport, pastime, or diversion, on Sunday while the bill makes this express provision for the liquor traffic, there can be no room for doubt that it will be an immense gain to the liquor business, if this bill is passed. AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.12
No, certainly, “This bill is not an ideal bill considered from a Christian point of view;” but it can be hardly anything less than an ideal bill from the whiskey point of view; from the point of view of idleness, carousal and deviltry. AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.13
And Dr. Whitman rejoices “that it has been possible to enlist Christian men and women of all beliefs in our city [of Washington] in defense of the bill.” He and everybody else ought to be ashamed of it. AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.14
Yes, it is an important and a significant thing that “the names that are behind this bill are simply representative names.” It is a pity and a disgrace that these representative names of professed Christians should represent so much favor to the liquor traffic and its baleful accompaniments, that they would deliberately frame a bill prohibiting honest labor while at the same time exempting and sanctioning the sale of malt and spirituous liquors, on Sunday, if it is only “provided for by law.” AMS January 14, 1897, page 22.15
ATJ
THE Rev. D. M. Talmage, pastor of the Reformed Church of Westwood, N. J., recently drew upon himself severe denunciation from Christian Endeavor workers connected with his congregation, by a criticism of the Society pledge. He compared it with the Saviour’s last commission to his disciples, with the ten commandments, and with the Lord’s prayer, and said that the pledge was too weak. AMS January 14, 1897, page 23.1
The particular points of his criticism were, that the Christian Endeavor pledge puts striving in the place of doing, sets up the human conscience instead of God’s holy law as the standard of duty, and rests upon human promises. “God’s promises to us are important,” he said, “not our promises to Him. God does not ask me to promise Him anything.” AMS January 14, 1897, page 23.2
In this Mr. Talmage touches the vital weakness of the whole Christian Endeavor movement. His criticism is true. The pledge is weak—as weak as are all merely human promises. There are many places in which a human promise is proper and necessary; but as a means of righteousness it is weak indeed. It is true that God does not ask man to promise Him anything. He knows that man’s promises are altogether too weak to serve His purposes. What God does ask is that men shall have implicit faith in His promises to them. AMS January 14, 1897, page 23.3
The Christian Endeavor hosts must face this truth, disagreeable though it be. Their whole movement is vitally, fatally weak—not weak as regards politics, or the changing of the structure of government or of society—but weak as regards the righteousness of God. Like some of the Jews of old, who went about “to establish their own righteousness,” those embraced in this movement “have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” If they have done so before, they cease to do so when they adopt the Christian Endeavor methods, for such methods cannot work out that righteousness. The only Book which tells us anything about that righteousness declares plainly that it “is revealed through faith.” It cannot be revealed by any amount of electioneering, balloting, legislation, or other manner of political procedure. AMS January 14, 1897, page 23.4
Faith is belief of God’s word. The Scriptures cite us to the faith of Abraham. “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.” His belief was not a mere intellectual assent to the truth of God’s word; it was an “Amen!” to that word. Abraham believed that God would perform what He had promised. God had promised that his seed should be as the sand of the seashore. As Abraham waited for the fulfillment of this promise, and continued childless, he finally engaged in what doubtless seemed to him a truly Christian endeavor to fulfill the promise. The result was Ishmael, the child born “after the flesh.” But Isaac, not Ishmael, was the child contemplated in the purpose of God. Ishmael was the child of works; Isaac the child of faith. Through faith, and not through the works of man, the divine purposes are to be fulfilled. AMS January 14, 1897, page 23.5
Abraham did all that any man can do to carry out the purposes of God. But he accomplished absolutely nothing toward the realization of that which he so earnestly desired. His execution of God’s promise did nothing at all to advance the cause of righteousness in the earth. His attempt was the most flat and dismal failure that could be imagined. It only placed an obstacle in the way which had to be set aside in the real fulfillment of the promise. “Cast out the bond woman and her son; for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.” Just so must it be with every attempt to fulfill God’s purposes through the works and the wisdom of man. AMS January 14, 1897, page 23.6
It is the purpose of God that righteousness shall fill the earth. He has promised that it shall be so. His prophets have prophesied of the establishment of His kingdom, and the subduing of the forces of evil that dominate the earth to-day. But how will all this be done? Will man now work out the purposes of God, by the power and methods which he has learned to use? or will those purposes be wrought out now, as of old, through faith? Shall we account that God is able to do and will do what He has promised, or shall we set our own puny, fallible hands to fulfill His promises? These are questions the Christian Endeavor forces would do well to consider before proceeding further in the work of gaining control of political power to “enthrone Christ on Capitol Hill.” AMS January 14, 1897, page 23.7
The commission of Christ to his followers is, to go into all the earth and preach the gospel to every creature. These are the marching orders for all who would engage in true Christian work. Not to do this, is to proceed contrary to Christ’s word; and this is to proceed without faith. The Christian Endeavor forces, in their schemes to take possession of civil governments and wield political power, are proceeding without faith, and therefore without divine power. The Word of God authorizes no such endeavors. AMS January 14, 1897, page 23.8
All such efforts can only work against the righteousness which is of faith, which is God’s righteousness, and the righteousness that will be manifested in His kingdom. AMS January 14, 1897, page 23.9
ATJ
THE one leading object of the “Christian Endeavor” work for 1897, is to make universal the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and instead of the Sabbath. And this is to be accomplished by whatever means can be employed. AMS January 14, 1897, page 24.1
In performing its part in the business, the Christian Endeavorer begins its campaign for the year, by booming a fraud. The Endeavorer declares this fraud to be the greatest discovery since Columbus discovered this Continent—“As important in theology as the discovery of America was in geography.” AMS January 14, 1897, page 24.2
This “great discovery,” this fraud in fact, is that the Sabbath of the Lord, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, was not the seventh day, but “occurred on fixed dates like one’s birth-day or the fourth of July.” And yet they call it the “weekly Sabbath”! Henceforth then all the people may expect Independence Day to occur, and may prepare to celebrate it, weekly on the fourth of July throughout the year; their birth-days likewise may be celebrated weekly throughout the year. That is a great discovery. And it is as plain as A B C that it is as great a fraud as it is a great discovery. AMS January 14, 1897, page 24.3
Yet the Christian Endeavorer actually booms this thing as so great a truth that among other great things to be accomplished by it the Endeavorer “trusts” that “The Jews throughout the world ... will be led to observe Sunday.” AMS January 14, 1897, page 24.4
This is a great thing of course, and so are some of the other things “trusted” for by the Endeavorer; but the greatest of all, the thing that brings most satisfaction to the soul of the Endeavorer, the thing that makes it fairly leap for joy, is the halorious fact that by this dismal fiction “The Seventh-day Adventists are left without any standing whatever;” and “The Seventh-day Adventists will simply have no reason for existence.” How great indeed must be the Seventh-day Adventists in the view of the Christian Endeavorer, when a thing that is hoped to leave them “without any standing whatever,” and without any reason for existence, deserves to be boomed as the greatest discovery of ages! If the Seventh-day Adventists are really so important an element as this, we hardly expect them to be put out of existence by this fraud, gigantic as it may be. AMS January 14, 1897, page 24.5