A MAN may believe in, and advocate, Constitutional religious liberty, without being confessedly a Christian; and without desiring to be a Christian. But he cannot do so without recognizing and indorsing, and indeed advocating, a Christian principle.AMS January 28, 1897, page 49.1

This, because the very principle of Constitutional religious liberty, the principle of separation of religion and the State, the principle of excluding religion from governmental recognition and jurisdiction, is essentially and only a Christian principle.AMS January 28, 1897, page 49.2

Though it be possible now for a man to believe in and advocate the truth that religion should be totally separated from government, without being confessedly a Christian, there was a time when such a thing was impossible.AMS January 28, 1897, page 49.3

It was Christianity that first announced in the world the idea of separation of religion and the State. This too, at a time when it was death to do so. “The Empire of the Romans filled the world.” By law, under penalty of death, that Empire forbade the exercise of any religion that was not recognized by the Roman State. Yet in the very heart of the Empire, in the most prominent cities—Antioch, Ephesus, Athens, Corinth, Rome itself—without State recognition, without asking any such thing, indeed declaring that the State had nothing to do with the subject, Christianity was exercised in all the privileges that it gave.AMS January 28, 1897, page 49.4

At that time, for any one to advocate the truth that religion should be separated from governmental jurisdiction, was in itself to confess Christianity. None but Christians would think of doing it. So essentially Christian was the idea, that had an emperor himself adopted it he would have been looked on as having espoused Christianity.AMS January 28, 1897, page 49.5

It took two hundred and fifty years of suffering, and sacrifice of everything, to bring the Roman world to the acknowledgment of the principle. It was finally done though. And then when an ambitious clergy took the antichristian step of securing the imperial, governmental recognition of the “Christian” religion—then it was, and not till then, that pagans and enemies of Christianity advocated the principle. Yet it was still the Christian principle it was before, even though it was adopted and maintained by the enemies of Christianity, as well as by genuine Christians, against the outrages of a professedly Christian, though really antichristian, power.AMS January 28, 1897, page 49.6

And so the principle yet, and ever, remains a Christian principle only. It matters not who may advocate it, it is still the same Christian principle it was when Christianity first announced it in the world.AMS January 28, 1897, page 49.7

If professed Christians had never taken an antichristian course, it is plain that none but the friends of Christianity could ever have accepted and advocated the principle. It is therefore perfectly plain that the apostate antichristian “Christians” are responsible for the enemies of Christianity using the principles of Christianity in opposition to Christianity.AMS January 28, 1897, page 49.8

Bear in mind that we do not object to the enemies of Christianity advocating the principle. We have only called attention to the truth, that had there never been any antichristian “Christians,” there had likewise never been any enemies of Christianity using Christian principles in opposition to what they suppose is Christianity. What we say is, Let Christian principles be espoused and advocated by whomsoever will do it. It is better that it be done by professed enemies of Christianity than not to be done at all by the professed friends of Christianity. When the principle is so outraged in the house of its professed friends, it is well that it should be so befriended in the house of its professed enemies.AMS January 28, 1897, page 49.9

It can never be denied that in the Roman world there was never any thought of any such thing as separation of religion and the State. It cannot be denied that Christianity was introduced into the Roman world in the first century and that it was there in the first and second centuries as really as it ever was at any other time. Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, Tragan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius, all give unexceptionable testimony that it was there then.AMS January 28, 1897, page 49.10

And just as certainly as Christianity was there then, so certainly did it proclaim the divine right of men to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences; and that the State has of right nothing whatever to do with religion. Thus this Christian principle was announced and maintained there then. It has been maintained in the world ever since, and it will always be maintained in the world.AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.1

It will always be a Christian principle and nothing else, it matters not who may advocate it. And it is only antichristianity that will ever under any pretext impugn it or deny it.AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.2

“Study the Constitution” American Sentinel 12, 4, pp. 50, 51.

ATJ

IN pointing out the dangers that threaten the people of the United States, a writer of clear discernment speaks of the time when “our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and Republican Government.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.1

The AMERICAN SENTINEL has shown quite fully the repudiation of every Protestant principle that has been accomplished for the country. We have also called attention to some things that have been against republican principle. And now we are compelled to notice an immense stride that has been made toward the repudiation of republican principle. This is the statement lately made by the Secretary of State, expressing the view of the President of the United States, that the President would not be bound by the action of Congress if that body were to pass a joint resolution, and he veto it, and then Congress pass it over his veto. This is a clear repudiation of the principle of republican government.AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.2

It is true this was said with direct reference to a joint resolution recognizing the independence of Cuba. But that matters nothing. If he can so act upon this point in one matter he can do so in all. The Constitution makes but one exception. Here are the words:—AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.3

“Every order, resolution or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and the House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.4

And the statement of the Constitution in the case of a bill, is that when repassed by the requisite two-thirds majority over the President’s veto, “it shall become a law.” Secretary Olney’s statement then is formal notice to Congress and the country that President Cleveland does consider himself under any obligation to administer “law” that does not please him.AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.5

We know that there is much discussion and difference of opinion as to the “meaning” of the Constitution, this question that has thus been raised. But we are asking any of the parties to this discussion, what Constitution means. We know what it says. And know that those who made it intended it to mean as it says. We know also that the men who framed the Constitution were just as able to say what they meant as any now are to show what they meant by interpreting their language differently from what it says. Although the Supreme Court were to interpret it different from what is says, such interpretation should be separated by the people. For what Abraham Lincoln said is the truth. “The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and Courts; nor overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow those who pervert the Constitution.” And there is not way to pervert the Constitution but by “interpreting” it differently from what it says.AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.6

Of this statement by the Secretary of State The Houston (Texas) Post, of January 7, well says:—AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.7

“When we come right down to the significance of the declaration by Secretary Olney, it is one of the most revolutionary ever emanating from the executive branch of the Government, short of the assertion of the right to secession which some of Mr. Buchanan’s secretaries ... and carried into open warfare....AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.8

“We have almost a constitutional monarch in our Presidency. Few constitutional rulers possess such real power. The assertion of one or two prerogatives more and we would become dangerously near a dictatorship.AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.9

“Many people will declare that such fears are idle and baseless, but history is full of executive encroachments upon legislative power. With the Republican centralized Government idea uppermost in our politics, the old Hiltonian theory of a strong central government, was reduced to its legitimate conclusions, means a strong executive, will have been greatly fortified if the Presidency or a cabinet officer is permitted to successfully assert the right to disregard an act of Congress, passed by the constitutional two-thirds majority over the Presidential veto.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.10

If Republican Government is to be maintained in this country, the people of these United States need to study the Constitution of the United States, and think carefully on what it says.AMS January 28, 1897, page 50.11

“The Monarchical Spirit in America” American Sentinel 12, 4, p. 51.

ATJ

IT is interesting to note the monarchical tendencies among the would-be “higher classes” in the United States.AMS January 28, 1897, page 51.1

The manifestations of this monarchical spirit and ambition are not by any means few. It is most marked, of course, among the idle rich; but it is by no means confined to that circle.AMS January 28, 1897, page 51.2

The ambition of American girls and women, to give themselves and vast fortunes for European titles and misery, is so notorious as to call for nothing more than mere mention in this connection.AMS January 28, 1897, page 51.3

Besides these there are thousands who, having no chance to secure titles, spend fortunes to secure the recognition of the titled ones of Europe. People will spend years and thousands of dollars to gain entré to “the Prince of Wales’s set,” or to a “drawing room” of the Queen of England; this “dignity” to be used in America in holding themselves as far as possible above other people.AMS January 28, 1897, page 51.4

And thousands of the people who stay at home, or who, if they go abroad, have not the fortune to attain to such “dignity,” are themselves so imbued with the same spirit that they look upon those who have attained to it, as being thereby so far superior to what they ever were before as to be entitled to some sort of worshipful reverence, and they proceed to pay it like any other toadies....AMS January 28, 1897, page 51.5

“Bishop Satterlee on Sunday Laws” American Sentinel 12, 4, pp. 51, 52.

ATJ

A “MAMSS MEETING” in the interests of “national reform” was held in the Metropolitan Methodist Church, Washington, D. C., January 17. Dr. Lyman, president of the “Reform Bureau” at Washington, presided.AMS January 28, 1897, page 51.1

The principal speaker was Bishop Satterlee, of the Episcopal Church, who addressed the meeting on the subject of “Sunday laws.” Some introductory remarks were made by the chairman, in which he said: “What we desire for the capital of this nation, a Christian nation, is that it shall be a Christian city.” This was to say that at present Washington is not a Christian city, and this opinion found ample support in the speeches following. How it is that the nation can be Christian, with its capital and seat of government unchristian, he did not explain.AMS January 28, 1897, page 51.2

Bishop Satterlee began by saying that he was a Christian, and believed that “no man can call himself a Christian unless he is in all times and places a true witness for the Lord Jesus Christ.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 51.3

Judged by this rule, what must be thought of the propriety of calling the United States a Christian nation? Is it “a true witness for the Lord Jesus Christ” “in all times and places”? No sane person would affirm such a thing. Yet Bishop Satterlee is fully assured that this nation is indeed Christian. Have the advocates of “national Christianity” two standards of Christianity, one for the individual, and another for the nation? It would seem that they have. Nevertheless there is but one true standard, and by that standard no such thing as national or governmental Christianity can be possible. Christianity will fit the individual, and nothing else.AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.1

It must be said that Bishop Satterlee’s speech did not speak well for his own knowledge of Christianity. As proof that this is a Christian country, he affirmed that it “is a country of universal suffrage,” and said that by this the nation manifests its confidence in humanity, and imitates the example of Jesus Christ, for “He trusted human nature”! What an assertion! If there was one thing Jesus Christ did not do, it was to trust human nature; and if there is one thing the follower of Christ must not do, it is this same thing. Human nature is fallen nature, and fallen nature is sinful nature so sinful that it can descend to the lowest depths of wickedness. The whole mission of Jesus Christ to this earth was to replace human nature by the divine nature, in which alone any being can safely trust.AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.2

To such lengths of error are men of intelligence and high church standing led in the search for some justification for Sunday laws.AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.3

“The highest law court in the land,” the bishop continued, “has decided that this is a Christian country. And the highest law in dictionary that I know anything about says that Christianity is the common law in America in every State but Louisiana.” This being so, we may fairly expect, if Christianity amounts to anything, to find a wonderful difference between Louisiana and other States with respect to the moral condition of society; since in these States all persons would be Christians except such as are lawless. It does not appear, however, by comparison with her sister States, that Louisiana suffers in the least from the failure of the common law in her domain to include Christianity. Nor does it appear that the people of those States which claim Christianity as part of their common law, however faultlessly they may observe the latter, are raised thereby one degree in spirituality above the plane of ordinary human nature.AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.4

Coming to the subject of the pending Sunday law for the District of Columbia, the bishop said:—AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.5

“Now I wish this law first of all, ladies and gentlemen, because first of all there is a great advantage in this Sunday law that it is proposed to enact, it seems to me, simply because there is not a single word—Christian, religious word—in the law itself. We believe in the eternal separation of Church and State in this country. It must carefully guard that, and we must not force our opinions upon others who have different opinions, and yet who are under the dominion of the same law. I have heard this Sunday law described within the last week of a very prominent legislator as the most moderate on the subject of Sunday he had ever seen in his life. Therefore it offends no prejudices; therefore all men can unite as far as that is concerned, and become at one with it. There is no place where one can insert an entering-wedge. There is not a single knife edge where this objection can be made. Throughout the law, from beginning to end, it speaks only of Sunday and the Sunday rest.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.6

It certainly would not be clear why a bishop in the church, rejoicing in the belief that this nation is Christian in character, and addressing an audience gathered for the express purpose of making the capital of the nation Christian by means of a Sunday law, should consider it a “great advantage” in that law that it contains not a Christian or religious word—were it not for his explanation that “we must not force our opinions upon others who have different opinions, and yet who are under the dominion of the same law.” In this country, “We believe in the eternal separation of Church and State. Therefore, “we” must say “Sunday” in our Sunday bill, instead of “Christian sabbath.” That makes a big difference in the character of the bill!AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.7

In other words, if “we” should force people to rest on the “Christian sabbath,” that would be forcing our opinions upon others of different belief. Hence we must enforce them to rest on Sunday!AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.8

The bishop would prevent any union of Church and State, and any forcing of one person’s opinions upon another, by disguising the means that would be used in their accomplishment! But a thing is disguised only that it may the more surely accomplish the purpose for which it is used. And that is the case with this Sunday law. It is a religious law, disguised as completely as possible in order that it may, if possible, deceive Congress and commit that body to Sunday legislation. That is the “great advantage” which the bill contains.AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.9

If any further proof of this were needed, it is furnished by Bishop Satterlee’s own words, uttered in the same connection; for it is with this evil scheme of Church and State as it is with murder; it “will out.” And so having called attention to the bill as one not at all religious and that could not offend the prejudices of anyone, the bishop in the very next breath stripped the disguise completely off, by saying:—AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.10

“We are following the sample of the first law, following after the line of the first law—Sunday law, which Dr. Elliott, who is present here this afternoon, told me to-day was ever enacted in the world—that is the law of Constantine. When the Roman Empire became Christianized many of its people were still heathen; and therefore instead of saying upon the Lord’s day, or upon the Sabbath day, in that law of his, it was enacted that upon the great day of the Sun no work shall be done.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.11

This is as true a statement of the purpose of the movement for Sunday legislation by Congress, and as strong a condemnation of it, as was ever uttered. Nothing worse would be said of it than that it is a repetition of the movement inaugurated by Constantine in the fourth century. That first “sample” Sunday law, which was a very mild one, was speedily followed by others more rigid, until the “venerable day of the sun” was forced upon the observance of all classes by a law as complete and undisguisedly religious as the most ardent sun worshiper could desire. Out of that movement of Constantine’s, begun by his Sunday edict, grew the union of Church and State, the Papacy, the Inquisition, and the persecution and death of millions of Christian martyrs. How much worse could anything be than a movement which starts out in the United States Government upon this same line?AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.12

Therefore, upon the representation made by the friends and advocates of this proposed law, as well as from what appears in the law itself, we are totally and unalterably opposed to its enactment. Nor can we see how any lover of liberty who is familiar with the history of Constantine and of the ear which he inaugurated in Church and State, can fail to be as fully opposed to it as ourselves. That the religious character of this bill if disguised, only makes it the worse, and the more worthy of opposition.AMS January 28, 1897, page 53.1

“Christianity and Common Law” American Sentinel 12, 4, pp. 52, 53.

ATJ

AFTER reading Jefferson’s exposure of the fraud by which “Christianity” was made a part of the common law, which we reprinted last week, the reader may query, how, in the face of such an exposure, it could still be maintained by American judges that Christianity is a part of the common law.AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.1

As stated last week, Jefferson’s expose—written in 1824, published in 1829—was a complete answer to the New York and Pennsylvania cases. It destroyed the basis upon which those cases was made to rest. Before a religious despotism could be further perpetuated in this country by the fraud that “Christianity is part of the common law,” this argument of Jefferson’s had to be overridden. This was done by Chief Justice Clayton, of Delaware, in 1837.AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.2

In sustaining a conviction for “blasphemy,” Chief Justice Clayton proffered an answer to Jefferson’s argument. Logically this proffered answer is a confirmation of Jefferson’s argument rather than an answer to it; but as it was officially given as an answer, it has been allowed the weight of an answer by those who wanted an established religion, though in fact no such weight justly belongs to it.AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.3

Justice Clayton speaks of Jefferson as “this letter-writer“: and says that the “letter is phrased in terms more becoming to the newspaper paragraphs [paragraphers?] of the day than the opinion of a grave jurist who feels respect for the memory of the eminent lawyers of England, because he knows and can appreciate their worth.” It is thus plain at the start that Justice Clayton had more regard for authority than he had for sound argument; and this character he sustains even at the expense of logically confirming Jefferson’s argument while he authoritatively overrides it.AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.4

Jefferson had said that “Sir Matthew Hale lays it down in these words: ‘Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.’ But he quotes no authority.” And that “Lord Mansfield qualified a little by saying ... that ‘The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.’ But he cites no authority and leaves us at our peril to find out what in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory upon us as a part of common law.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.5

To this Justice Clayton says that “they had no occasion to cite any authority”; and that “Sir Matthew Hale was an authority of himself, and is considered as a sufficient authority for a common law principle in every case when there is no contrary authority. What sources of legal knowledge his great erudition may have consulted on this subject, we have no means of certainly knowing nor is it necessary to inquire.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.6

This is the sum and the substance of his “answer” to Jefferson’s argument. And thus in spite of logic, in spite of sound argument, in spite of the plainly written Constitution which he had taken an oath to uphold, and solely on the dictum of an English judge, he carries over and establishes in Delaware the English and papal principle of established religion.AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.7

After all this it is interesting to see what argument he made on his own part, to land himself comfortably in his arbitrary position. He made a distinction “between a religion preferred by law, and a religion preferred by the people without the coercion of law;” and says that “every court in a civilized country is bound to notice what is the prevailing religion of the people” and by common law to protect it “to the full length of punishing any man who outraged the feelings of the people, by wantonly and maliciously reviling or ridiculing the religion which they had freely preferred.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.8

He then says that if the people should change from the Christian religion and prefer Mahommedanism, then the courts would change their ruling also and punish as blasphemy the reviling or ridiculing of Mahommedanism, while taking no notice of such conduct toward Christianity. Then if the people should drop Mahommedanism and prefer the religion of Judaism or “Joe Smith,” the courts would punish as blasphemy the “malicious reviling of Moses” or of Mr. Smith. And all this change and counter-change because “no human power can restrain them from compelling every man, who lives among them, to respect their feelings.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.9

It is perfectly plain, therefore, that Chief Justice Clayton would not have been as just as Pilate was; but would have sent the Lord Jesus to the cross upon the high priest’s charge of blasphemy. If any would be inclined to doubt this, then let him read the following:—AMS January 28, 1897, page 52.10

“No man could justify himself under the present civil institutions of the State in endangering the public peace [by speaking against the prevailing religion]. He might feel himself impelled by a stern sense of religious duty to brave public opinion and become a martyr for his zeal. All this he might do and justify himself in his own opinion for it before God.... He who forcibly resists a bad religion is thus far like him who resists a bad government: if successful in his resistance he may become a reformer of men or a hero; if unsuccessful, a martyr or a traitor.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 54.1

And by this doctrine it would be a settled thing that the courts would be fully enlisted in the “laudable” work of making martyrs and traitors of all such men. A blasphemer, a traitor, and a martyr, are precisely what were made of the Lord Jesus; and it was done by this identical doctrine.AMS January 28, 1897, page 54.2

Such is the doctrine, and such the authority for the doctrine, that is couched in the phrase “Christianity is part of the common law.” And such is the means by which that doctrine has been perpetuated in the States of the American Union. For in spite of the splendid efforts of Jefferson and his fellow-workers for religious freedom, and in spite of the constitutional provisions in all the States, Chief Justice Clayton’s decision has ever since been accepted as the standard on that subject.AMS January 28, 1897, page 54.3

How appropriate it is that such an enormous fraud should be supported by such a horrible doctrine. Yet what a pity and how astonishing it is that either the fraud or the doctrine should ever have found any countenance by men who ever made any pretentions to enlightenment or justice, or who ever heard of Christianity!AMS January 28, 1897, page 54.4

“Pure Anarchy” American Sentinel 12, 4, p. 59.

ATJ

“EXCEPT the State be born again, it cannot see the kingdom of God.” This statement is conspicuously inscribed upon the official organ of the “Christian Citizenship League,” and is credited to a “professor” of “applied Christianity” in a western college. It is the doctrine that Christianity can be applied to the State—that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the State as well as of the individual. There is but one way of salvation, and that is by being “born again,” as the Saviour explained to Nicodemus. Supposing then that the State could be “born again,” what would result? It would have to manifest the spirit of Christ, which would necessitate that it forgive its enemies; and forgive them not once merely, nor “until seven times,” but “until seventy times seven.” Matthew 18:21, 22. So as often as the trespasser against the State might say, when brought into court, “I repent,” the State would be obliged to forgive him, and discharge the debt! Could any arrangement better suit the desires of the criminal classes? or more quickly and thoroughly destroy the whole structure of civil government? Could any doctrine be more thoroughly anarchistic? These questions answer themselves.AMS January 28, 1897, page 59.1

And yet it is actually a fact that this doctrine is, in this very land of enlightened government, now held and advocated by nearly all the leading religious societies! And those who would warn the people against it are denounced as anarchists!AMS January 28, 1897, page 59.2

“‘Desecration’ of Christmas” American Sentinel 12, 4, p. 62.

ATJ

A WRITER in the Catholic Mirror, of January 2, 1897, says: “The saddest thing connected with the Christmas season is the terrible and widespread profanation of the holy day.” If Protestant ministers have a right to protest against the profanation of Thanksgiving Day, Roman Catholics certainly have a right to protest against the profanation of Christmas, which is a “holy day” in the calendar of their church. It is certain, too, that Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day stand upon exactly equal footing in respect to their alleged sanctity.AMS January 28, 1897, page 62.1

That the “profanation” of Christmas Day and other legal holidays is very bad, is true enough; not, however, because any such day is in any sense holy, but because they are given over by the masses to reveling and drunkenness. As the writer above quoted says: “In every section of our country the papers record melancholy and appalling evidence of drunkenness, debauchery, murder, and crimes of all kinds. A great many people think that Christmas is the period for reviving the Roman Saturnalia, or else they so conduct themselves.”AMS January 28, 1897, page 62.2

And what is there strange about this? The Roman Saturnalia just suited the carnal mind back in the days of the Cesars, and why should it not just suit the same mind now? There is as much of that mind in the world to-day as there ever was, and as much of it can be found in professedly Christian communities, as anywhere else.AMS January 28, 1897, page 62.3

The trouble is that these legal “holy days” furnish the carnal mind with just the opportunity that it seeks. Let an individual have plenty of good, honest labor to perform, and the carnal propensities will remain comparatively dormant. But shut off this salutary employment of mind and hand, by legal provisions designed to “protect” some “holy” day or holiday, and the carnal mind will at once assert itself wherever it has not been dispossessed by the Spirit of God, and the old saying which connects the devil with “idle hands” will be qualified. The man is exposed to all evil in order to “protect” the day! Better would it be to protect the man than all the days in the calendar.AMS January 28, 1897, page 62.4

The more “holy” days and holidays increase, and the more their observance is made compulsory upon the people, the more drunkenness, debauchery, murder, and general lawlessness there will be. And the more honest employment can be provided for the multitudes whose hands are idle, and the more the people are made free to engage in honest work when they want to work, the fewer occasions there will be calling to mind the Roman Saturnalia. The truth of this is so evident that it can be be [sic.] seen by any one who does not feel bound to uphold Sunday laws at whatever cost.AMS January 28, 1897, page 62.5

January 21, 1897

February 4, 1897