ABOUT as near as anyone can come to divining the purpose of “Lent,” as related to Protestants, in the absence of any authority on the subject, is to say that it institutes a sort of “indulgence” for a life of doubtful duty during the rest of the year.AMS March 18, 1897, page 161.1

It would be possible for Lent to be only this, even if it were a season instituted by the Lord; for God’s institutions often become perverted. And as it was not instituted by the Lord, it is not possible that it should be anything but this.AMS March 18, 1897, page 161.2

The real purpose of penance, in the heathen system of which it forms a part, is that of an indulgence, either to satisfy a past transgression, or to provide for a future one. It is a principle of human nature—and human nature is strictly heathen—that an individual can in some way and to some extent, atone for his own transgressions. This principle crops out everywhere in an individual’s way, before he becomes a Christian, of dealing with himself and with others. His own bad deeds, or those of others, are offset in his view by the later “good” deeds of the respective parties. He thinks that he must do something good in order to become good; and that he must just make himself good in this way to a certain extent, before he can come into touch with God.AMS March 18, 1897, page 161.3

Having done what he considers a very good deed, by way of penance, his conscience will be eased until he again does something that he knows to be of a decidedly different character, or until he has continued for some time in the pathway of “small” transgressions. Then he feels that he must again do something to set himself straight. So it happens that the Lenten period of penance supplies a want of human nature, coming as it does in intervals convenient for that purpose.AMS March 18, 1897, page 161.4

Upon this question of the real nature and purpose of Lent, we may cite the testimony of the papal church. That church is the author of the observance, and being in no sense a divine ordinance, it has never been perverted from its original purpose. In a late issue of Cardinal Gibbons’ organ, the Catholic Mirror, the following observations are made by way of preparing the minds of “the faithful” for the occasion:—AMS March 18, 1897, page 161.5

“With this week begins the holy season of Lent, when according to the precept and immemorial custom of the church, we should, as far as possible, lay aside worldly thoughts, and especially worldly pleasures, and occupy ourselves with considerations which relate to our eternal salvation. This, indeed, we should do at all times; but more especially in Lent, when everything in the divine offices of our religion reminds us that the passion and death of our Lord are to be soon commemorated.AMS March 18, 1897, page 161.6

“There is no person who cannot give up something for the sake of Almighty God, in Lent—all that is necessary is the will to do so. There are pleasures, of doubtful benefit to us spiritually at all times, which should now peremptorily be abandoned. There are the very questionable amusements in which many indulge—the play-going, the reading of light literature, and the various diversions of society. During the penitential season, at least, these recreations should be utterly relinquished, and the discipline of the church should be complied with as rigorously as possible. Then it will not follow at the end that one, looking back with regret and self-reproach, will realize that the holy season for him or her has come and gone in vain.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 161.7

In brief, the idea here expressed is that during this season of penance, “worldly pleasures” “of doubtful benefit to us spiritually at all times,” “very questionable amusements,” etc., should be laid aside, and the individual should conduct himself in a strictly Christian manner. And what makes it a season of penance is the very fact that he feels obliged to conduct himself in this way. For forty days a heathen must try to act like a Christian. And truly, if that be not a penance, we cannot think of anything that would be. Every individual who has tried the experiment knows how hard it is to try to act like a Christian before being one.AMS March 18, 1897, page 161.8

It will be said, of course, that Lent is for Christians—“the faithful”—and not for the heathen at all. But we do not care anything about the theory of Lent. We are considering only the reality of it, and the reality is that Christians can have no possible use for Lent, because (1) it has no sanction in the Word of God, and (2) a Christian acts like a Christian at all times of the year, and not merely during some period of penance. And he finds no penance at all, but only pleasure, in so doing.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.1

To seek to gain an indulgence for a life of “questionable amusements” and “worldly pleasures” during the rest of the year, by means of the Lenten penance, is no more Protestant or Christian than to purchase an indulgence from the pope direct.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.2

“Freedom for a Million Slaves” American Sentinel 12, 11, p. 162.

ATJ

THE Christian Endeavorer is much exercised over the matter of “Sunday slavery” which is alleged to be very prevalent in this country. In its March issue it calls for the abolition of this Sunday slavery as the thing of first importance in work for the “rescue of the Sabbath.” “There are,” it says, “over a million people in the United States who are obliged to work on Sunday against their will.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.1

If the SENTINEL could but reach this million and more of people, it would say to them in the name and by the authority of Him who rules over all, You are not slaves at all, but free men, if you but will to have it so. We have better tidings for you than those who remind you of your slavery. You need not wait for the success of some movement on their part to set you free by law; you are free already. It only remains that you should assert your freedom.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.2

This, of course, you may not be willing to do; but you can do it if you will; and if you do not, your slavery will be voluntary.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.3

You are not compelled to work on Sunday against your will. No one is compelled to do this. You are, at most, only compelled to choose between Sunday work and the prospective suffering of pecuniary loss. But pecuniary loss is not the loss of liberty. The freest individual in the world is liable to pecuniary loss.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.4

If you are in slavery, it is only because you do not know that you are free. That, indeed, is the common condition of mankind. Freedom, full and complete, has been purchased for all. The great emancipation proclamation for the race has been issued, over a name and seal that stand for all power and authority. The only thing necessary for any man is that he shall accept his freedom.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.5

If the slaves of the South had refused to accept the freedom offered them in the proclamation of President Lincoln,—if they had chosen to remain just as they were, refusing to believe that they had been set free, or waiting for some law to be enacted compelling them to be free, they might have remained slaves until this day. In some instances they did, through ignorance, remaining until long after the edict of emancipation went out. But the vast majority were willing to take the freedom it brought them. They immediately took their liberty. But people are very much aloof to the soul liberty which is just as truly theirs.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.6

By the sacrifice on the cross, the Lord has purchased this liberty for every individual so that it becomes to each a free gift. But a ... not unless it is accepted. By accepting this it becomes the high prerogative of every person ... always the dictates of his will and conscience.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.7

This, of course demands faith in the person. It is faith that sustains the individual in personal freedom. His will being always to do that when he simply obeys the dictates of conscience as unto the Word, and leaves the results with God.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.8

There is no reason whatever why any one should complain of “Sunday slavery.” The ... such complaint should be conclusive evidence of the Christian character of the complainant.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.9

The Christian simply trusts his God and ... freedom. Whatever he believes God has ... that he does, without reference to any arrangement established by man. Hence he is never without the enjoyment of Sabbath rest. Human customs and actions must, with him, adapt themselves to the word of God, and not the precepts of God to the rule.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.10

And this is the liberty that every individual may assert. He must assert it, on the basis on which it is offered, if he is to realize it. If he waits for a law to compel him to realize it, he will not realize liberty. Soul liberty cannot be obtained that way.AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.11

We say again, there is full and complete liberty for this multitude in “Sunday slavery,” for the immediate realization, upon the basis God himself has established for it. God is the Author of liberty, and also the Creator of man. He is the God both of the Christian and the gentile. All men should be possessed of that means by which they may know the freedom which God gives, and become forever emancipated from their slavery. And why should the Christian Endeavorers hold them to anything else?AMS March 18, 1897, page 162.12

“‘What Is Wrong?’” American Sentinel 12, 11, p. 164.

ATJ

WHAT is wrong? inquires the Rev. C. S. Bullock, in the March Christian Endeavorer, and proceeds to justify and answer the query as follows:—AMS March 18, 1897, page 164.1

“Every pulpit in the land guarded by law—nearly one hundred thousand men of learning and ability set for the bringing to the attention of other men the life and death message of God—and yet—AMS March 18, 1897, page 164.2

“Multiply the twelve apostles by eight thousand and how soon they would turn the word up-side-down! What is wrong?AMS March 18, 1897, page 164.3

“Think of England—the brightest part of Europe. Eighty thousand criminals; one hundred and sixty thousand drunkards; one hundred thousand prostitutes; nearly ten hundred thousand paupers, and a drink bill of one hundred and thirty-six million pounds sterling! Is that the best the gospel of Jesus Christ can do for England?AMS March 18, 1897, page 164.4

“Look upon our own land—over seventy-three million population and about twenty million enrolled members in all branches of the church! Seven million young men, of whom but five per cent. are enrolled as members of the church, these, as a fraction of one of the million, attend church somewhat regularly, another million attended occasionally, but five million never attend. Think of arresting over one and a half million of men and women annually—fifty millions in a generation! Crime increases four and a half times faster than the population. What is wrong?AMS March 18, 1897, page 164.5

“Here we stand upon the threshold of the twentieth century with the record of forty million people habitually absenting themselves from the house of God! We have perfect machinery and a seemingly large amount of zeal—we are doing everything that we can think of to reach the ungodly—we have tried spinning-wheels and grabbags, theatricals and tableaux, broom drills and donkey socials. We have fiddled to them and fed them with ice cream and cake, and tickled them with funny stories, yet ‘Ichabod’ seems to be written upon everything we do. What is wrong?AMS March 18, 1897, page 164.6

“Is there a power that can change these things? What is needed? Paul cries, ‘The gospel is the power of God.’ O, that is what is needed—power! POWER! Power in the Church and through the Church in politics to regenerate society. The only thing that can correct the things that need correction is the ‘gospel.’ Let us apply the gospel in liberal doses!”AMS March 18, 1897, page 164.7

Yes; it is power that is needed, and that power is needed in the church. But the needed power is not political power, but “the power of God.” The gospel is not political power. The gospel “is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” Romans 1:16. The power comes only to those who believe, and this totally separates it from politics, for politics have nothing to do with faith.AMS March 18, 1897, page 164.8

If the Church does not have the power she needs, it is because there is a lack in believing—believing the Word of God. Jesus Christ said to his followers, as he was about to ascend after his resurrection, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.... And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Then why has the Church not power? Is it not because she has forsaken Christ and joined with Cesar, and is seeking for divine power to be exercised through politics, for the “regeneration of society”? God cannot lend himself to any such scheme. The Church will have to get out of politics before she will realize the power for which some in her communion long.AMS March 18, 1897, page 164.9

“The ‘Religious Significance of the Inauguration’” American Sentinel 12, 11, pp. 165, 166.

ATJ

THE Sunday evening following the inauguration at Washington, D.C., the pastor of the Metropolitan M. E. Church, of that city, delivered a sermon on the “religious significance” of the event. This church is one of the largest in the city, and was attended by the President at the morning service of the same day. For his text the speaker read from 2 Kings 11:12, “And they clapped their hands and said, God save the king;” also from Romans 13:11, “The powers that be are ordained of God.” Among other things he said:—AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.1

“We are a Christian nation. There is a secular theory of civil government. We have a little band of vociferous secularists and infidels, who have succeeded in giving the public an aburdly [sic.] exaggerated sense of their numbers and importance, who would de-Christianize the State, who would have judicial oaths, prayers in our legislative assemblies, and Sunday laws abolished; in short, all the Christian elements of our national life. They would destroy our national inheritance and are no more patriots than they are Christians. They deal their deadly blows not merely at revealed religion, but at human liberty and progress.AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.2

“The Christian religion is the foundation of all law and all literature, and to be hostile to the Christian religion is to be hostile to the Government in which we dwell.AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.3

“The Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law regulating the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office of public trust. These simply secure religious freedom and separation of the Church from the State. They are as a bill of rights, guaranteeing to all the churches full liberty, and forbidding Congress ever to abridge that liberty. It is not a union of Church and State, but the union of Christianity and the State. A free church in a free country; each independent of the other; each fulfilling different functions, yet coöperating together to increase the reverence for law and increase the stability of the Government. The recognized religion of this land is not the Episcopalian Christianity, the Presbyterian, Roman Catholic or Methodist Christianity, but the Christianity common to all,—a common religion, a universal Christianity.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.4

This paragraph calls for some comment. Let it be noted that there is a vast difference between church freedom and individual freedom. When the papal church enjoyed the greatest freedom, during the dark ages of her supremacy, individual freedom was at its lowest ebb. Church freedom that is not compatible with the fullest individual freedom, is nothing else than despotism. It is this that should be secured to them by the Constitution.AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.5

And it is just this freedom that is always invaded by a union of Christianity—so-called—with the State. That union may leave the churches free enough, especially if they prove to be the dominant power under the arrangement—but it invades individual freedom by combining with religion a power which pays no respect to individual option. The State does not persuade; it commands and enforces; and when it is united with “Christianity,” it is to command and enforce “Christianity” in so far as the union extends. But it is the divinely-ordained prerogative of every individual to exercise perfect freedom of choice in religion. The State says, You must. Christianity says, “Whosoever will, let him come.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.6

Hence there can never be union of real Christianity with the State.AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.7

Of course there is no such thing as “Episcopalian Christianity,” or “Roman Catholic Christianity,” or “Methodist Christianity.” There is but one kind of Christianity in the world—one way of being like Christ. And for this reason a union of all denominations, or of the leading ones—with the State cannot possibly be a union of Christianity with the State.AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.8

The speaker said further:—AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.9

“The recent unanimous decision of the Supreme Court is that this is a Christian nation, destroying as a precedent the famous Tripoli treaty in which the Mohammedan power was assured that the United States was not a Christian nation. The Christian is supported in independent but friendly relations with the civil power. Our Christian life and churches have moved forward most rapidly. The increase in church membership from 1890 to 1895 was over four million. The increase of population falls far below the rate of church progress. The church has steadily and rapidly gained upon the population.AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.10

“Shall we surrender our Government to secular con- [sic.] control? That would be treason to liberty; that would be the betrayal of the sacred trust we hold for our children; as well as disloyalty to God, and this blessed Book, which is the Magna Charter of human rights and happiness.AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.11

“We have evidence of the Christian character of the nation in the inaugural addresses of the Presidents.... This last inaugural has been most impressive. Listen to the opening words of the President:—AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.12

“‘In obedience to the will of the people, and in their presence, by the authority vested in me by this oath, I assume the arduous and responsible duties of President of the United States, relying on the support of my countrymen, and invoking the guidance of Almighty God. Our faith teaches that there is no safer reliance than upon the God of our fathers, who has so singularly favored the American people in every national trial, and who will not forsake us so long as we obey his commandments and walk humbly in His footsteps.’AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.13

“This brings us to the religious significance of this ceremony. This ceremonial can be regarded in no other light than a mutual covenant. The oath of the President to serve the nation carries with it the unspoken vows of the people, to yield obedience to the laws, to support and defend the Constitution, and to invoke the same divine favor and help. The President must realize the sacredness of his office. If the powers that be are ordained of God, then surely the head of a great nation stands very near the holiest ministers of religion.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.14

We are reminded by this of another occasion when some vows were made by a “Christian nation” of old,— the nation of Israel, as they were assembled around the basis of Mount Sinai. There was a covenant made there,—a covenant of the people to obey the voice of the Lord which they had heard from amid the flame and smoke upon Sinai’s top. But only about a month later they were found worshiping a golden calf. This occurrence casts no light shadow of suspicion upon the vows of a “Christian nation” to live uprightly. With many, indeed, in the Church as well as without, it is a question whether the American “Christian nation” are not even now engaged in worshiping the golden calf. Considering this subject from the standpoint of its “religious significance,” we are certainly warranted in these observations.AMS March 18, 1897, page 165.15

The speaker proceeded to define the duties of “the covenant into which we enter as a people” by virtue of the President’s inaugural oath. These are, as defined, the duty of reverence for the laws and for those in authority, and the duty of giving our best endeavors to the purification of politics. In this connection he said:—AMS March 18, 1897, page 166.1

“We pledge ourselves anew to our country as a Christian commonwealth. The future of the nation is safe only as we are Christians. Those who are lifting up their voice against the Bible, against the sabbath, against our Christ, as the enemies of the best interests of the country. The nations of the past that have gone down in night have sunk because of corruption. Our present condition comes largely because of our lack of faith in God. Let public immoralities be suppressed; let the Lord’s day be reverently held, and Sunday newspapers, Sunday traffic, and Sunday labor as far as possible be suppressed. Let our laws be such that it will be easy for men to do good, and hard for them to do wrong. The only bulwark of our nation is Christianity; and without it we have no hope of perpetuity.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 166.2

This only makes still plainer the idea of the speaker that these “unspoken vows” of the people are to be fulfilled through Christianity. No other view, indeed, would be in harmony with the doctrine that “this is a Christian nation.” No other view would invest the President’s inaugural with a “religious significance.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 166.3

The speaker would have done better if he had placed reverence for the right above reverence for the laws and for those in authority. The “laws” are not always right; and “those in authority” not above the right. Reverence for the right is the only safeguard of liberty.AMS March 18, 1897, page 166.4

What effect such teaching as this setting forth the “religious significance of the inauguration” will have upon the Administration, remains to be seen.AMS March 18, 1897, page 166.5

“The Right of Private Judgment” American Sentinel 12, 11, pp. 167, 168.

ATJ

AN article in the New York Independent, of March 11, contains the following:—AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.1

“No better illustration of the rigid control which the Catholic Church exercises over the consciences of its members can be given than the rules it lays down as to what they may or may not read. We give some of these rules as promulgated only last year by the present rather liberal pope as popes go. Here is one:AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.2

“‘Books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and all other writers which defend heresy or schism, or in any way tend to overthrow the basis of religion, are absolutely forbidden.’AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.3

“Every book which defends our Protestant forms of faith is thus absolutely interdicted. Here is another rule:AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.4

“‘Likewise are forbidden books of non-Catholics which professedly treat of religion, unless it is known that they contain nothing contrary to Catholic faith.’AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.5

“It is not enough, it seems, to forbid books which defend heresy or schism, but any book on religion written by a Protestant is forbidden unless it is known that there is nothing in it that contradicts any part of the Catholic faith. But we are further told in another rule that books by non-Catholic writers which are not on religion, such as novels, we suppose, or scientific treatises, may be read even although they may ‘merely incidentally touch on truths of faith.’AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.6

“Next follow, in the document from which we quote, the rules about the Holy Scriptures. No edition of the Bible in the original tongues, and no ancient version in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, or any other language of the earlier church, prepared by a none-Catholic, is allowed to any except those engaged in theological or biblical studies, and to them only, provided no attack is made ‘in the prefaces or notes, on dogmas of the Catholic faith.’AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.7

“Much more is it forbidden to read any edition of the Holy Scriptures in the vernacular prepared by a non-Catholic.AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.8

“‘Since experience has proved that, on account of man’s boldness, more evil than good arises if the Sacred Books are allowed to all without check in the vulgar tongue; wherefore all versions in the vernacular, even though made by Catholics, are entirely forbidden, unless approved by the Holy See or issued under the care of bishops, with notes taken from the holy fathers of the church and from learned Catholic writers.AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.9

“‘Prohibited are all versions of the Holy Scriptures made by whatever non-Catholic writers, in whatever vulgar tongue, and those especially which are spread broadcast by Bible societies, again and again condemned by the Roman pontiffs, since they entirely discard the most salutary laws of the church relative to the issuing of divine books. But these versions are allowed to those who are engaged in theological or biblical studies, on observing the regulations set forth above.’AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.10

“If any Catholic wants, for any person, to read a book thus forbidden, he must ask permission not of his confessor, but of his bishop; and this permission must not be easily granted, for the rule says that this permission may be given ‘only in chosen cases and for good and sufficient cause,’ ‘only in urgent cases’ and ‘for single books.’ Furthermore, bishops must ‘proscribe and take out of the hands of the faithful’ any forbidden books that have been circulated. And still further, no Catholic layman is allowed to publish any book on religion without episcopal permission, and no priest can publish on any subject, religious, scientific or social, without such license.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.11

All this is of course utterly contrary to the principle of individual freedom of judgment in religious matters, which is the very essence of religious liberty. It shows how complete is Rome’s antagonism to that liberty of which she has claimed to be the champion. Upon this point of the individual right of private judgment, Protestantism claims to stand in complete opposition to Rome. But how fully is this claim sustained by leading exponents of Protestantism? What difference is there in principle between Rome’s dictum on the subject, as quoted above, and the following from that very Protestant journal, the Golden Rule, organ of the Societies of Christian Endeavor, in its issue of March 4:—“ENDEAVORER, Princeton, Ill:AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.12

“You say that through your own unaided study of the Bible you have become convinced that you should change your church and denomination, and you are especially grieved that you must take this step in opposition to the earnest wishes of your mother. Pardon me if I say that no one should take such a serious step as this relying merely upon his own judgment. You should seek the advice of your pastor, and of others who are wiser than you.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.13

In other words: After you have talked with God on the subject of your duty, and He has spoken to you, don’t move in the matter until you have had a talk with some man! After consulting with God, don’t fail to consult with your pastor and other fallible mortals around you, and thus avail yourself of their superior wisdom! It would not be safe to take God’s word alone! Of course, God’s word is all right in itself; but you need some human power and wisdom to make you understand it! This is Rome’s position exactly, only Rome, with more worldly wisdom, simply brings the individual to the human authority direct, and thereby saves herself much trouble in the management of her adherents. The very essence of Romanism is the interposing of human authority between the soul and God, and the very essence of this “Protestantism” is the same.AMS March 18, 1897, page 167.14

We would not quote this if it were not fairly representative of most of the Protestantism of to-day. Protestant instructors are almost always ready to give this advice to those whom they would guide under such circumstances. They do not make it compulsory upon any, to be sure; they can present no commands from the Church “authorities” forbidding an individual to be guided by his own conscientious understanding of God’s Word. But they go as far as they can in the way of persuading him to set aside his own mind, and be moved, like an automaton, by the mind of another. They differ form Rome only in the means employed, not in the principle involved or the end sought.AMS March 18, 1897, page 168.1

What does God himself say about this? James 1:5 gives the answer: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask [not of his pastor or his ‘wiser’ friends, but] of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” True Protestantism believes these words, and leaves every individual free to make them a rule of life.AMS March 18, 1897, page 168.2

“A Week of Prayer for ‘Sabbath Observance’” American Sentinel 12, 11, pp. 168, 169.

ATJ

APRIL 4-11 has been designated by a committee representing the Sunday observance movement, as a “week of prayer for the observance of the Lord’s day.” Three especial subjects of prayer are set forth in the announcement, as follows:—AMS March 18, 1897, page 168.1

“1. That God will bestow such influences of the Holy Spirit as shall quicken the consciences of all Christians that they may give more earnest heed to His command to hallow the sabbath in their homes and in public by refraining from such acts as will tend to weaken regard for the Lord’s day.AMS March 18, 1897, page 168.2

“2. That He will lead Christians to obey the important part of the fourth commandment: ‘Thou, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy stranger,’ and to understand that it is a greater sin to require another to do a wrong than to do it ourselves; and that no one obeys God fully in this command until he has done all in his power to secure for those in his employ an opportunity for the enjoyment of sabbath rest and worship.AMS March 18, 1897, page 168.3

“3. That He will lead to victory all who are striving to enforce the laws against the open saloon on the sabbath, and such amusements as disturb the peace and quiet of the day.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 168.4

We are fully in sympathy with the desire that Christians and all others should be led to a better observance of the Lord’s day, and trust that this special season of prayer may bear fruit to that end.AMS March 18, 1897, page 168.5

In reading the above, however, our eye is caught by the phrase, “the important part of the fourth commandment.” This gives rise to some queries. What is the important part of the fourth commandment? This call to prayer for its observance sets forth “Thou, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy stranger” as the important part. In seeking an answer to the query it might be pertinent to inquire, What is the unimportant part of the fourth commandment? Is it that part which specifies which day it is that must be observed as the Sabbath or Lord’s day? Certainly this committee did not mean to imply that Sunday observance is not a thing of great importance. Take Sunday out of their aims and calculations, and let no other definite day be substituted, and there would be neither point nor force in this call to prayer for sabbath observance.AMS March 18, 1897, page 168.6

That part of the fourth commandment specified in the call is important, certainly. But it is not the important part of the command. Every part of it is important. Every part of every divine command is important. It is of the highest importance. This is a characteristic which attaches to every word that God has spoken to man.AMS March 18, 1897, page 169.1

It is utterly useless to engage in prayer for Sabbath observance without believing that every part of God’s Sabbath commandment is supremely important, not excepting that part which says, “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Those who would realize profit from this occasion, must believe this, and give every part of the command their sincere “Amen.”AMS March 18, 1897, page 169.2

March 11, 1897

March 25, 1897