WE have set permanently at the head of our columns that the AMERICAN SENTINEL is published in the interests of religious liberty—Christian and Constitutional.AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.1

It is published in the interests of Christian religious religious [sic.] liberty first of all, over all, in all, and through all, because that in the realm of the spirit of man, Jesus Christ is the Author of religious liberty and of nothing else.AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.2

Jesus Christ created man. He created him with such a nature that his only happiness and his only good can be found in serving his Creator with all his heart, all his soul, all his might, all his mind, and all his strength. For such is “the first of all the commandments.”AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.3

Yet for all this, the Creator made man so perfectly free that it rests altogether in the man’s own choice as to whether he will serve his Lord at all. It was so in the beginning, in the garden; it is so yet, and for evermore; because men in his creation is an element in “the eternal purpose which is purposed in Christ.”AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.4

Therefore the word in which are revealed the counsels of the Creator in this eternal purpose, that word which liveth and abideth forever, rings out to all, through all the ages, “Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.” “Whosoever will, let him come, and take of the water of life freely.” “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.”AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.5

His word is “the word of life.” It is the word of eternal life—the word of life of the eternal One. To whomsoever that word comes, in this there comes to him eternal life. To reject that word is to reject eternal life. And to reject eternal life is to choose eternal death.AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.6

He who rejects eternal life, in that very thing judges himself worthy of eternal death. He who chooses eternal death, thus passes sentence of death upon himself. Therefore it was spoken to them of old, and is written to all, “It 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,” etc. “See I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; ... therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.7

Thus it is that the Lord can say truly, “If any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not.” That is the truth: and when in that Great Day, the unbelieving meet eternal death, they receive only that which they have freely chosen. And though the Lord created man in the beginning for the highest of all possible destinies, and, when the man by wrong choice lost the way to it, gave Himself that the man might after all attain to it; yet He still leaves him absolutely free to accept or reject this destiny at his own choice.AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.8

CHRISTIANITY AND ANTICHRISTIANITY

This is Christianity. This is the divinely-ordained freedom of mankind in religious things. We ask then, Why will not all professed Christians recognize it and act accordingly? They cannot deny that it is the principle of the word of God: why do they not stand unswervingly upon it? They cannot deny that it is the word and the example of the Lord Jesus: why then do they not in strictest integrity “walk as He walked”?AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.9

It is perfectly plain that to swerve a hair’s breadth from this principle is to forsake Christianity. For Christians to act in any point or in any degree contrary to this word of Christ, is to act the part of antichrist. This is as plain as that two and two make four.AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.10

And yet the professed Christians of almost all sorts are working in almost all ways, to get governmental power in their hands by which they propose to compel men to observe the Christian Sabbath; to compel men to submit to the will of the Church; to compel men by human laws to accept “the reign of Christ on Capitol Hill.” Who does not know that this is so?AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.11

And because all such work is antichristian, this is first of all why the AMERICAN SENTINEL is uncompromisingly opposed to it. It is first of all in the interests of true Christianity, or genuine allegiance to the word of God, that we oppose the Christian Endeavorers, the miscalled Christian Citizenship League, the National Reformers, and the whole Church combination of the country, in their efforts to control the civil power. In this matter their endeavor is antichristian. Its only influence is to misrepresent Christianity; its only result will be to envelope men more and more in antichristianity.AMS January 21, 1897, page 33.12

CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS CHRISTIAN

The AMERICAN SENTINEL is published also in the interests of constitutional religious liberty. And this because constitutional religious liberty is Christian. The provision respecting religious liberty in all the Constitutions of this country, is the correct statement of the principle announced by Jesus Christ as to total separation of His religion from all governmental recognition.AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.1

Nor was it an accident that this is so. The original provision on this subject, which has been followed in all the Constitutions in this country, is distinctly declared to be so enacted because of this principle of Christianity. Here it is with the leading reasons for it, as written by Thomas Jefferson, in 1779:—AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.2

“Well aware that ALMIGHTY GOD HATH CREATED THE MIND FREE: that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of THE HOLY AUTHOR OF OUR RELIGION, who being Lord of both body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time: that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical....AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.3

“Be it THEREFORE enacted by the General Assembly, That no person shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief: but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.4

We repeat: This is the original statement upon which the provisions respecting religious liberty, of all the constitutions of the country have been modeled. This original statement was so framed, in order NOT TO BE “a departure from the plan of the holy Author of our religion.”AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.5

Let it be borne in mind too, that this original statement of the Christian principle as a constitutional provision was in an earnest campaign against an attempt of a religious combination to secure governmental recognition of “the Christian religion.” Thus in the origin and establishment of the form of government that is distinctively American, an attempt to secure governmental recognition of “the Christian religion” was uncompromisingly opposed expressly in the interests of the Christian religion and in order not to depart from “the plan of the holy Author of our religion.”AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.6

SOME UNDENIABLE TRUTHS

It is therefore undeniable that this provision in the Constitutions is the expression of the principle announced by Jesus Christ on this subject, and was intended by those who made it, to be in harmony with “the plan of the holy Author of our religion.”AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.7

It is also undeniable that in upholding and defending this provision of the constitutions of the States and the Nation, we are maintaining the vital principle of Christianity for States and nations.AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.8

And it is further undeniable that all these churches, leagues, societies, and combinations, that are insisting on the governmental recognition of the “Christians” religion in legislation, jurisdiction, and otherwise, although they call themselves Christians, are violating vital Christian principle: are departing from “the way of the holy Author of our religion:” and are taking a course that is positively antichristian.AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.9

Let us not be misunderstood. We do not say that the people of these churches, leagues, and societies, are knowingly and intentionally taking an antichristian course. We simply say, what is plain enough, that they are doing it—without any question or impeachment of their motives. We willingly do them the justice really to think that if they knew it, they would not do it.AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.10

The priests, the Scribes, and Pharisees, of Judea did not knowingly and intentionally take the antichristian course that they did in crucifying the Lord of glory. If they had known it, they would not have done it. Nevertheless they did it. And they could not have done it any more completely had they known it. Their ignorance as to what they were really doing, did not alter the nature of what they really did. It only lessened the measure of their guilt in the doing of it. And it was proper for the Christians in that day, to tell those church leaders and religious combinations that they had taken an antichristian course and had crucified the Lord of glory.AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.11

So it is now: It is an antichristian course that these professed Christian Endeavor Societies and Christian Citizenship Leagues and Christian churches are taking in their efforts to have the “Christian” religion recognized by the governments, State and national, in the jurisdiction and legislation.AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.12

It is antichristian, in that in so doing they override constitutional provisions that are expressive of the principle announced by Jesus Christ for governments, and that were established expressly to place and to keep these governments in harmony with “the plan of the holy Author of our religion.”AMS January 21, 1897, page 34.13

It is antichristian also, in that it is in violation of the vital principle of the government of the Creator and the essential happiness of the worshiping creature.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.1

And it is perfectly proper for the Christians of to-day to point out to them and to all, that such a course is antichristian both doctrinally and constitutionally, even though it be unintentionally.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.2

Therefore as the vital principle of the government of God and the happiness of worshiping creatures is the perfect liberty of the individual, exercised freely upon his own choice; in order to publish a paper in the interests of true religious liberty, it must be published in the interests of religious liberty—CHRISTIAN.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.3

And as the provisions of the American constitutions separating religion and government, are expressive of the principle announced by Jesus Christ for governments, and are thus in harmony with “the plan of the holy Author of our religion,” the AMERICAN SENTINEL in being published in the interests of religious liberty—Christian, is published also in the interests of religious liberty—CONSTITUTIONAL, because constitutional religious liberty is Christian.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.4

“Christianity and the Common Law” American Sentinel 12, 3, pp. 35, 36.

ATJ

IN his recent decision denying a certificate of incorporation to a Jewish society because it was to hold some of its meetings on Sunday, Justice Pryor, of the Supreme Court of New York, affirms that “In the State of New York the Sabbath exists as a day of rest by the common law.” His authority to make this statement is borrowed from the idea which has acquired a show of legal authority in this country, that Christianity is a part of the common law under the State government. That this idea is itself without any real authority, or the slightest foundation in truth, is evident when considered from the Christian standpoint.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.1

What is Christianity? Can it be a part of a human code? Can it be anything of human manufacture? Can it be comprised in statutes, or in customs and observances which have acquired the force of law? If Christianity be a part of the common law, these questions must be answered in the affirmative.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.2

But no truthful affirmative can be given them. Christianity is not a form or set of forms; it is a power, and it is nothing less than the power of God. It is life; for according to the word of its divine Author, he who believes on Jesus Christ has been raised to life from a state of death in trespasses and sins. His life as a Christian is wholly different from his life as an unbeliever. The things which he once loved, he now hates, and what before he hated, he now loves. If his conversion has been genuine, this difference is plainly manifest. He has been “born again.” He has received a new creation.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.3

There is no power, no life in law. A statute has no power to execute itself, or to compel obedience from any. Obedience to any human law is secured either by the strength of right principles in the individual’s heart, or by fear of the consequences of transgression. There is nothing in the statute which can affect the heart, or supply any power toward the performance of that which it requires.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.4

It will be said, however, that by the statement that Christianity is part of the common law, it is meant only that Christian customs and observances are established in the common law, being recognized and supported by it, as in the case of the “Christian Sabbath.” Customs and observances, however, even be they such as the Scriptures enjoins, can at most be but the letter of Christianity, which without the Spirit is a lifeless form. To enforce the letter of Christianity without the Spirit can benefit no one. On the contrary, it is the worst injury, spiritually, that could be inflicted. “The letter killeth: but the Spirit giveth life.” 2 Corinthians 3:6. As there is no life in it without the Spirit, to enforce the letter is but to enforce spiritual death. And this is what it means to enforce Christianity as a part of the common law.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.5

Nothing more utterly anti-Christian could be conceived. As no condition could be worse, spiritually, than that of the one who holds Christianity itself as a lifeless thing, and in whom the very light is darkness, so nothing more opposite to Christianity could be devised than the scheme of forcing an individual to accept the forms of Christianity, without the power.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.6

The very worst state of things, spiritually, that is to exist in the world, is that foretold by the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy, where he says that “in the last days” “men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers,” etc., “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” The mere “form of godliness” goes hand in hand with all the sins that God’s Word denounces. And this form of godliness can be enforced by law, but the power of godliness cannot be enforced. Hypocrisy can be enforced, but piety cannot be enforced. And where the power of godliness is lacking, there must be hypocrisy, and sin of every kind.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.7

A form of godliness without the power of godliness is not Christianity. But when the State forces the forms of godliness upon its citizens, it enforces them as Christianity, and those who receive them through the agency of the State receive them as Christianity. They might not accept them as such upon the word of the secular authorities, but they are not prepared to dispute the assertions of the preachers who are behind the civil authorities in all such work. And thus Christianity itself is made death to them, and erelong they loathe it as they would a corpse. And if they are rigidly bound to it by the law, all the manhood that is in them will resolve to be freed from it at any cost. No man will tamely submit to be bound to a thing that is dead.AMS January 21, 1897, page 35.8

Such are some of the indisputable facts that pertain to the blasphemous doctrine that Christianity is part of the common law.AMS January 21, 1897, page 36.1

“The Problem of a Weekly Rest” American Sentinel 12, 3, pp. 43, 44.

ATJ

THE religious and labor federations, the statesmen and theologians, who are laboring over the problem of securing a weekly rest for the toiling masses, are making much ado about nothing. There is no problem involved in the matter at all.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.1

There is not a man on the face of the earth but is now, and has been all his life, supplied with a weekly day of rest. It is given him by none other than the Creator, and by the latter enjoined upon his observance. The only problem that can be connected with it is the problem of doing what the Lord commands.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.2

It is true that some people—very many in fact—make a great problem of obedience to God. But this is because they do not want to obey Him, and do not obey Him in fact. Obedience itself is a very simple thing. Obedience to God, in just the way that God points out, is one of the simplest things in the world. But when men try to obey God in their own way, at once a problem arises; and so great is that problem that it is altogether beyond solution by any wisdom or power on earth. God cannot be obeyed by any man in man’s way.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.3

THE LORD’S REST

What God says concerning a weekly rest is that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.” God is the author of the Sabbath; and by resting on the seventh day after six days of work and setting apart that day as a day of rest, He made the week. The Sabbath and the week stand in inseparable relation to each other. The very process of making the one, established the other.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.4

The seventh day Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. God fixed it there at creation, and no human power can move it from its place. God commanded—and still commands—every person to keep it holy; and all that any one has to do in the matter is to do as the Lord directs.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.5

But, it is said by many, “I cannot keep the weekly rest day, on my own responsibility, without a great sacrifice.” Possibly that is so. Possibly you would lose your job, and be brought into financial straits. But what of that? If you are willing to make a sacrifice to obey God, you can obey Him. You can take the rest day that He gives you, and get all the good from it that can be realized by any person in the world. If you are a Christian, you will not deny that it does not hurt any individual to lose his job or be brought into a strait place on account of obedience to God. From a Christian point of view, a strait place is not half as bad as a broad place where everything goes smoothly. And if you are not a Christian, you can derive no benefit from the Sabbath, anyway. The Sabbath benefits only those who obey God.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.6

It is said that man needs one rest day in each week; and that is true. If man did not need the Sabbath, the Creator would not have made it. Unremitting toil is not good for the race. No one claims that it is. But the Lord, who made man, knew what kind of a rest man would need, and made the Sabbath to supply that need. The one who takes the Sabbath and keeps it as God has commanded, gets the rest, and the one who does not obey God in this respect, does not get it.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.7

Seven days’ work in the week, it is loudly asserted, is contrary to God’s order. True: and disobedience to one of God’s commands is also contrary to God’s order. And the one is no more contrary, and no more hurtful, than the other.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.8

GOD’S LAW IS ENOUGH

Laws may be passed to enforce the observance of Sunday; the trades unions may adopt regulations to secure the workingmen a weekly day of rest; but all such work amounts to nothing, so far as securing benefit to men is concerned. It is wholly unnecessary. Why?—Because God himself has legislated on that very point, and his legislation covers the whole ground. No human legislation covers the whole ground. No human legislation can add anything to the command of God; and any legislation that is not in harmony with God’s command, would much better never have been enacted.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.9

No matter what may be the needs of the human race; no matter how eloquently or convincingly the modern “reform” orator may be able to discourse on the evils of unremitting toil, the fact remains that the Creator has taken out of the hands of man all legislation touching a weekly rest, by legislating on the subject himself for every individual on the earth; and that legislation remains in full force to-day. If individuals do not heed it,—if they work seven days in the week themselves, or try to force their employees to work, the only remedy still lies in obedience to God’s command. Man cannot legislate on the subject of a weekly rest without invading the prerogatives of God.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.10

All men are bound by God’s Sabbath law; and when man presumes to make a different law covering the same point, or to re-enact God’s law, he is guilty of nothing less than blasphemy.AMS January 21, 1897, page 43.11

These considerations make it clear why human Sabbath laws never benefited the human race in the past, and why no possible benefit can be derived from them to-day.AMS January 21, 1897, page 44.1

January 14, 1897

January 28, 1897