ATJ
SELFISH generosity—giving some one else a “piece of your mind.” AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.1
THE Christian church cannot keep one eye upon the state, and the other eye upon God. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.2
THE sword of the civil authority cannot be used to reap harvests for the Lord. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.3
NO PEOPLE ever preserved their rights except by working out their own salvation. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.4
“BENEVOLENT assimilation” is governmental benevolence. Real benevolence means giving, not taking. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.5
THE nineteenth century is no time for growth and fruit bearing from seed sown back in the Dark Ages. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.6
TAKE the assumption away from the basis of the Sunday laws, and they would have no foundation on which to stand. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.7
IF men are going to enforce God’s laws let them also enforce God’s penalties. The two belong together and no man has a right to separate them. But who will venture so far as to assume the right to inflict death upon people for sin? Let such a one first begin with himself. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.8
YOU cannot save any person by making him keep the Sabbath; he can be made to keep the Sabbath only by being saved. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.9
THE beef trust supplies men with embalmed beef; a Sabbath trust—for enforcing Sunday—would give to men only an embalmed Sabbath. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.10
DON’T worry about whether the Sabbath is going to be “preserved” or not. God’s Sabbath—the only one that is worth anything—is a living thing, giving life to man, so that he is refreshed in keeping it. It does not call upon men for their aid to preserve its life; it calls upon them to receive the life it has to impart, and that in never-failing measure. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.11
ATJ
CHRIST said, “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” John 12:47. Not if any man believe I judge him not; but “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not.” This is so far from the practice of the professed Christian world that I have seen people who thought they were Christians, and I do not dispute but what they were so far as they knew, who would not believe that that statement was in the Bible when it was read directly from the Bible. When the Lord Jesus judges nobody for not believing, how can men judge anybody for not believing? and above all, how can those who profess to be the Lord’s people judge anybody for not doing or believing what Jesus said. AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.1
Jesus said, “The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.” John 14:24. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” 2 Corinthians 5:19. “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” Hebrews 1:1, 2. God speaks to us in these last days by his Son. When God does not judge a man who hears his word and does not believe, is not that sufficient example for men? and above all, is it not a sufficient example for people who profess to know God, and to fear him? and does it not forbid every Christian forever, to sanction any law which would require anybody to observe any law which would require anybody to observe any day, or subject that man to judgment if he does not observe any day? AMS March 16, 1899, page 161.2
“If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him.” “The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.” When the words of God, as they were spoken by Jesus, are presented to a man, and he rejects them, he rejects eternal life; and when he rejects eternal life, by that very act he chooses eternal death. Then who brings him to eternal death? Who counts him worthy of death? None but himself, and God is forever cleared. AMS March 16, 1899, page 162.1
When Paul and Silas were at Antioch they preached to the people, and were besought by the Gentiles that the same things might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Acts 13. But when the unbelieving Jews saw the Gentiles coming in crowds they opposed the preaching, “contradicting and blaspheming.” Then Paul and Barnabas said, “I was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” AMS March 16, 1899, page 162.2
Who judged those people unworthy of everlasting life?—Themselves. Who then sentenced them to everlasting death?—Only themselves. Thus it is ever with the preaching of the word of God in truth. That word is the word of eternal life. He who preaches that word in sincerity presents to every soul who hears him, eternal life. Whoever rejects the word, whoever rejects the preaching, rejects eternal life; and in so doing passes upon himself, by his own choice, the sentence of eternal death. AMS March 16, 1899, page 162.3
Now, ought it not to be enough for any man, however vindictive, to know that his fellowman has rejected eternal life and is subject to eternal death? Ought not this to be enough to satisfy to satisfy the average preacher, without his feeling himself called upon to punish by law and fine and imprisonment those who choose to reject their preaching and refuse to observe the Sunday? Is not eternal death penalty enough upon such people without their being subjected to condemnation and misery the little time they may be able to live in this world? Surely it would seem that this should be enough to satisfy anybody with a spirit any less vindictive than that of Satan himself. AMS March 16, 1899, page 162.4
And it is enough to restrain even from thinking ill of such persons, all who have a vestige of the Spirit of the tenderness or pity of the Lord. “God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” It is not condemnation but salvation, that men need. Men are already doubly, and over and over, condemned for not obeying the word of the Lord. Further condemnation can do them no good. And it must be a spirit that is only and thoroughly vindictive that will insist on condemning them yet more. Yet such and only such is precisely the spirit that is the spring and impulse of Sunday laws or any other laws favoring religious things. AMS March 16, 1899, page 162.5
But such is not the Spirit of Christ nor of God. God is the Author and the Respecter of Liberty. The Spirit of the Lord is the Spirit of liberty; for “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” God made man free to choose liberty and happiness; for in order to have liberty and happiness, liberty and happiness must be chosen. And if a man chooses this apart form God, the Lord still respects the freedom of the choice: and so does everybody else who is of God, and who has any of the Spirit of God. AMS March 16, 1899, page 162.6
Salvation, not condemnation, is what all people need. The Lord Jesus came to the world and gave himself a sacrifice on the cross that men might have salvation, and not condemnation. “As he is so are we in this world.” Christians are here in the place of Christ to carry forward the work of Christ. His work was not to condemn the world but to save the world. This is the work of Christians, and nothing else if. The moment the spirit of condemning anybody is found in the heart of anybody who professes to be a Christian, that moment that person can know that he is departing from Christianity. And the moment the spirit of condemnation is entertained and indulged by anybody who professes to be a Christian, that moment he can know that he has departed from Christianity, and that his profession of being a Christian is hypocrisy and fraud. AMS March 16, 1899, page 162.7
The Christian must recognize and respect the rights of men which God has established. Not to do so, is not to be a Christian. And not to do so declares that man to be not a Christian, whatever his profession may be. AMS March 16, 1899, page 162.8
These things are worth thinking about just now. It will require Christian faith and Christian courage in these days not to judge your brother for not observing a Sabbath, and especially for not observing Sunday as a Sabbath. It requires Christian courage in these days not to set at naught your brother for doing this, that, or the other, on Sunday, and not fine him, nor put him in jail, nor bring him to the chain-gang. In scores of cases in the last eleven years, people have been put in jail, and judged worthy of the chain-gang, by men, for not observing the day which the law said should be observed as the Sabbath, when they had observed a day in harmony with their conscience and the Word of God. AMS March 16, 1899, page 162.9
God calls upon you to regard the human rights which he has established; and never to aid by law or any other way in forcing any man to observe a day which you think is right; and never to judge any man for not observing such a day. Christianity is a sensible thing. AMS March 16, 1899, page 162.10
The world, and even the professed Christian world, nmay not grasp these principles of human rights; but God will have a people who will recognize Christianity in all its length, and breadth, and height, and depth, and who will live genuine Christly lives before the world in such a way that the world shall realize what Christianity is, as really as they did in the days of Jesus Christ himself on earth. AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.1
The glory of God which belongs to the Christian is to enlighten the whole world, and the world will yet see what Christianity is. A. T. J. AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.2
ATJ
THE preamble of the Bill for the proposed Sunday law in California, says that “Whereas ‘Christianity is the common law of the land’; and as the people of the State generally regard the Christian Sabbath, or the first day of the week, as sacred to religious worship; and because the best interests of the State are conserved by Christian morality, which is inseparably connected with the proper observance of the Sabbath,” etc. AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.1
This contains several assumptions. It assumes, first, that “Christianity is the common law of the land.” This is nothing more than tradition. It states almost the lowest possible conception of Christianity, and this in itself stamps it as utterly untrue. Christianity is as far above the “common law” or any human law, as heaven is above the earth. Christianity is “the power of God unto salvation” to the believer on Jesus Christ. This is what God himself says of it (Romans 1:16), and therefore it is the absolute truth. But the power of God unto salvation is not in human law. AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.2
The “common law” is enforced by civil pains and penalties; and if Christianity is a part of it, Christianity must be enforced upon the people by the same means. This conception of Christianity therefore demands an enforced religion, which is contrary to every principle of free government. It is therefore both unchristian and un-American. AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.3
Assumption number two in this preamble is that the “Christian Sabbath” is “the first day of the week.” This likewise is pure tradition. The highest and only Authority on the subject declares that the seventh—not the first—day is the Sabbath; and in all the Scripture there is not a word of authority for the sanctity of Sunday. If God’s Word is true, it is true that the seventh day is—and therefore that the first day is not—the Christian Sabbath. AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.4
There is yet another assumption crowded into this short preamble; namely, that “the best interests of the State are conserved” by an enforced observance of the Sabbath. It is true that “the best interests of the State are conserved by Christian morality,” and that this “is inseparably connected with the proper observance of the Sabbath”; but this is cited as an argument for a Sunday law, and must therefore refer to Sabbath observance as secured by Sunday enforcement. Sabbath enforcement is not Christian morality at all, for Christianity represents no force but the power of love. Only heart religion can be a conserver of the best interests of the State; and in this religion, Sabbath observance, like every other practice, is of faith, and not of force. Enforced religion is not of faith, is contrary to it, and is against every interest of the State, as all history unmistakably shows. This third assumption is as false as either of the others. AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.5
And these assumptions are the basis of the proposed Sunday law. The language of the Bill is that “Whereas,” these things (which it cites) are so, “The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact,” etc. Since, or because, these things are so, this proposed Sunday law should be enacted; that is what the Bill declares. But the things referred to are not so; and since they are not so, it is evident by the logic of the Bill itself that the Sunday law ought not to be enacted. AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.6
Assumptions of things which are not true can afford no foundation for an enactment of the people. No proper law can exist on such a basis. And this basis—this assumption of what has no existence—is the basis of every Sunday law in the land. AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.7
ATJ
NOT long ago there was “a National Reform Convention” held in Bromfield Street Church, Boston, which called “upon this nation to make a recognition of God as the source of all authority, the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of nations, and the Bible as the fountain of all law in the Constitution of the United States.” AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.1
A few days later a meeting was held by the Hebrew citizens of Boston. In this meeting “there were a large number of speeches made.” The Hebrew citizens of this country, the speakers stated, were fully satisfied with the present Constitution, and it was shown that they were among the first to lend their money and their aid by taking up arms in defense of their adopted country in every war in which it was involved, from the war for independence up to the Spanish-American war. They all agreed that the Hebrew citizens had stood by the Constitution and are among the last to ask for any change in it. But as a change has been asked for, they desire that the rightful first lawgiver known to the world be given the honor of having his name placed in the Constitution. AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.2
The following resolutions were unanimously adopted at the meeting:— AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.3
“WHERAMS [sic.], free religious tolerance and freedom of speech is granted by the Constitution of the United States to its citizens of all creeds alike; and AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.4
“WHEREAS, the Hebrew citizens are among those who fought for the freedom and independence of the United States in every war in which this, their adopted country, was involved; and— AMS March 16, 1899, page 163.5
“WHEREAS, a certain other creed desires to change the wording of the Constitution, in which all citizens should have their say, be it— AMS March 16, 1899, page 164.1
“Resolved, That as Moses was the first lawmaker of mankind, as stated in ancient history, an official recognition of his supreme headship over all lawmakers should be shown in the instrument of civil compact in the United States of America. AMS March 16, 1899, page 164.2
“Resolved, That the Hebrew citizens, while in a small minority, though of greater numbers than the National Reform Association, deeply deplore the omission of Moses’ name from the Constitution of the United States, as his laws were used in framing the Constitution. AMS March 16, 1899, page 164.3
“Resolved, That in our judgment as Hebrew citizens, Moses should be recognized for his gift to the world as the only supreme head and lawgiver of all nations of the globe. AMS March 16, 1899, page 164.4
“Resolved, That by placing the name of Moses in the Constitution of the United States of America, that of no other Hebrew or descendant of Hebrews will find a place there, and a wrong done by the forefathers in framing the Constitution of the United States of America will be righted, and the proper respect shown the followers of the first law-writer known to the world: and thus remove all jealousy existing at the present time among other creeds, which must acknowledge the receipt of their laws from that ancient people of which Moses was lawgiver and leader. AMS March 16, 1899, page 164.5
“Resolved, That as many well-known lawgivers, who have served their individual states from time to time, have tried to pass bills through the legislature of their individual states asking for the adoption of some of the ten commandments, the laws given to the Hebrews by Moses, can be easily seen the power centered in these laws and the honor due the writer who presented to the world centuries ago these laws which have governed and will govern the world forever. AMS March 16, 1899, page 164.6
“Resolved, Since the residue of power is vested in the people in this Republic, men to show their good citizenship are obligated patriotically, morally, and religiously, and therefore should employ all proper means to secure the insertion of the name of Moses in the Constitution of the United States of America and thus prove his authority as king and supreme lawgiver. AMS March 16, 1899, page 164.7
“Resolved, That a mass meeting be called at an early date to further discuss this most important matter and arrange for its adoption by the Government at Washington. AMS March 16, 1899, page 164.8
“Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the National Reform Association, a body that has labored arduously to have a wrong righted, and that cooperation and assistance be asked to gain the proper recognition due the first lawgiver known to the world.” AMS March 16, 1899, page 164.9
Since at “the National Reform Convention the attendance was small,” while at the meeting of the Hebrew citizens “a very large crowd was present;” and since the cause of the Hebrew citizens is equally just with that of the National Reformers, why should not the cause of the Hebrew citizens be espoused by the Government in the Constitution, equally with that of the National Reformers? Why? AMS March 16, 1899, page 164.10
A. T. J.