ATJ
GOOD character is built not upon human law, but upon love of good principles. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.1
IT is the province of the civil authority to deal with crime, but God’s province to deal with sin. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.2
EVERY man has a right to rest from work on Sunday, and he has also the privilege; there is no law to prevent him from so doing. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.3
THE laws of nature govern man’s physical wellbeing, and none of these laws were or can be framed by a legislature. Nor can any government enforce them. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.4
IMMORALITY has vastly greater power for destruction than any human law has for salvation. The latter is not a panacea for the effects of the former. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.5
AMS THE true standard of morality cannot change, only that authority can properly legislate upon morality which is not subject to change, and that is the authority of Omniscience. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.6
INJUSTICE is no more binding on an individual when in the form of a statute, than before it was enacted into “law.” As justice is always binding, in justice can never be binding in any form. Therefore the paramount question is not whether a law shall be enforced or not, but whether it is just. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.7
CONGRESS and the State legislatures are designed to represent the people of the States. No legislative body in a republican government can represent a church, or a religious organization. And for this reason churches and religious societies ought to keep out of politics. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.8
AMS JUST laws are binding upon all individuals, and conscience is also binding upon each one, it is evident that both cannot occupy the same sphere without conflict, and therefore that their proper spheres are separate from each other. Law is not made to take the place of conscience, and conscience cannot surrender itself to law. The province of law is simply the preservation of human rights, and the office of conscience is to guide the individual in doing right. To protect rights, and to enforce right, are vastly dissimilar things. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.9
ATJ
MUCH is being said of a certain book professedly written from the basis of “What would Jesus do?” As this question is akin to the Christian Endeavor pledged, the theories of the book are expected to have a large place among the Endeavorers: indeed it seems that this is so already. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.1
Whatever may be said of the book as to its application to the individual life in general, of the question, “What would Jesus do?” it is certain that in one important particular it is altogether in error: and that is that it carries into politics and all the affairs of the state and endeavors to apply there the question “What would Jesus do?” AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.2
But this is altogether an error, because the only way anybody can truly tell “What would Jesus do?” is by what Jesus really did. What Jesus really did and commanded all to do, is written out in his Word for the guidance of all. And in all that is written of what he either did or said, there is no suggestion that he ever in any way whatever took any part in politics, or had anything to do with the affairs of state. On the contrary, there is direct and positive evidence that he refused to do so. AMS July 20, 1899, page 433.3
This was not by any means because there was no need of reforms in politics nor improvement in administration; for if ever there was in the world corruption in politics, and evil in administration, that was preeminently the time. AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.1
“The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and repressive: on every hand were crying abuses—extortion, intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of those in power. He who was our example, kept aloof from earthly governments. Not because he was indifferent to the woes of men; but because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To be efficient, the cure must reach men individually, and must regenerate the heart.” AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.2
With reference to all matters of politics and governmental administration, the only proper answer to the question “What would Jesus do?” is that he would utterly separate himself from it, and would have nothing whatever to do with it. And when anybody enters into politics and affairs of government asking “What would Jesus do?” he leaves at once the realm of Christ, enters an utterly foreign field, and can get from Christ no answer to his question for his guidance there; for Christ never was there and never did anything there. The only true answer that anyone can get there to that question is, “My kingdom is not of this world.” “Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” “Come out from among them, and be ye separate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you.” AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.3
All therefore who enter politics and affairs of state contrary to the whole example and word of Christ, as they must do to do it at all, and then expect to apply the question “What would Jesus do?” the only answer they can ever get allowing them to continue there, is such answer as they themselves can give to themselves. And the answer that religionists have always given to themselves in those places is abundantly told in the persecutions and oppressions that have afflicted the people in every country where the thing has ever been done. AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.4
And for this perverse sentiment to be imbibed and carried out by the enthusiasts of the so-called Christian Endeavor movement, in the interests of that most stupendous error of Sunday observance, would speedily flood this nation with evil enough to ruin it. AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.5
No: the state is not the realm of Christ. Politics is not the work of Christ. The spirit of earthly government is not the Spirit of Christ. It is all “enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” And in all such connection the only answer to “What would Jesus do?” is, He would do just what he did when he was here—separate entirely from it all and be joined body, soul and spirit to the realm, the work, and the Spirit, of God, which are not of this world. AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.6
That is what Jesus did. That is what Jesus would still do. And that is what every one will do who will go in his steps. AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.7
A. T. J.
ATJ
LOST in Elmira, N. Y., the “American Sabbath.” So says The Defender, an Elmira journal. No reward is offered for its recovery. We quote:— AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.1
“Lost—the American Sabbath! AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.2
“Will the church bells of Elmira ring out this alarm? Such contempt for the day as the city reveals now would have been considered shocking not long ago. To tell truth, it is not now so openly manifested by the liquor people as by others. Not a Sunday goes by but that the cigar stores, the candy stores, the drug stores, the ice cream places, the fruit stands, and the soda fountains of Elmira are all in full blast, and doing more business than on any other day of the week. AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.3
“The liquor saloons have as good a right to hold open as these. It is unjust to the saloons to demand closed doors of them, and let these other places be wide open. AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.4
“The Law and Order League grows red in the face because a prostitute walks the streets, and insists that the police prohibit all that sort of thing; but we hear nothing of righteous anger because the Sabbath is desecrated by a hundred tradesmen with impunity; the majesty of the law is not invoked, in behalf of good morals and of tradesmen who respect the Sabbath sanctities. AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.5
“Lost—the American Sabbath!” AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.6
But all this growing business and pleasure on Sunday does not at all interfere with the Lord’s Sabbath—the seventh day. That is not lost. Ask any observer of that day, and he will tell you this is true. He will only be surprised that you should ask the question. AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.7
And here is an important truth that should be noted and kept in mind; the fact that in spite of all the work that is being done week after week on the “Sabbath of the Lord,” and the worldly pleasures to which so many people devote the day, this Sabbath is not being lost, is proof that it cannot be lost. And if it cannot be lost, it is plain that whoever will keep it cannot be lost, either. He will not be lost, to all eternity. AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.8
The “American Sabbath”—the first day of the week—is lost; so its own friends confess. And how many who were its adherents are lost with it? A Sabbath that can be lost itself has obviously no power to save a soul from being lost. But why not choose that Sabbath which cannot be lost—“the seventh day [which] is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God”? AMS July 20, 1899, page 434.9
ATJ
THE National Reform theory of government is that of government by consent of the “orthodox” clergy; an oligarchy is a government by consent of the “nobility;” a plutocracy is a government by consent of the rich; an imperial government is a government by consent of an emperor and his favorites or by some party holding supreme power; and all of these various forms of despotism rest on the same principle—that of government by consent of some of the governed. On that principle it is impossible to erect anything else than a despotism. AMS July 20, 1899, page 448.1
THE apologists for the war of subjugation in the Philippines have much to say in disparagement of Aguinaldo and his followers, but they never say anything about the principles by which the campaign is justified or condemned. The attempt to justify the campaign by alleging that the Filipinos are treacherous, mercenary and generally an incapable and worthless lot,—as if all this, even if true, could make any difference in the matter of their natural rights. The most worthless specimens of the white race in America—men as base and degenerate as any to be found in the Philippines—are accorded all the rights of American citizens, and no imperialist would dare attempt to put in practise here the doctrine he preaches with reference to the people of Luzon. Despotism bases its claims upon differences—real or alleged—between men; but just government is based not on human differences, but on human-rights. Despotisms are based on men, but just government rests on principles. AMS July 20, 1899, page 448.2
THE aggressiveness and success of Mormonism in this country is regarded, and rightly, as a national menace. But why? Not because of its peculiar religious doctrines, but because it is a political power. It dominates State affairs in Utah and has a strong hold upon the surrounding States, and may soon hold the balance of power in congress. The Mormon Church is in politics, and this is the menace of Mormonism to the nation; but the other churches in the land are estopped from making any protest, for they are doing the same thing. They all believe that Christians should go into politics and make politics pure by the application of Christianity to it. The Christian should vote “as Jesus would have him vote,” etc. This is what they say for themselves, and why cannot Mormons say the same for themselves? They can; Mormonism as a national menace can never be consistently or successfully combated by the churches, since the principal—the genuine Christian principle—that religion and the state should not be mixed. AMS July 20, 1899, page 448.3