ANY scheme which makes one man morally accountable to another man, or set of men, is popery; and no such scheme can be any better than the papacy.AMS January 4, 1900, page 1.3

THE scheme to have the Constitution “acknowledge God” is really a scheme to have that document acknowledge the theocrats it back of the scheme as the moral rulers of the nation.AMS January 4, 1900, page 1.4

THE agencies of the divine government are not human, but invisible spiritual agencies which proceed from the throne of God. With their appointment man can have nothing to do.AMS January 4, 1900, page 1.5

THE true acknowledgement of God is always made in the individual heart; and if God be not acknowledged in the hearts of the people, any outward acknowledgement of him is only hypocrisy and sin.AMS January 4, 1900, page 1.6

WE have been told that “this is a Christian nation;” but we have never been pointed to the time when it was baptized, or the occasion when it was “born again,” or to any evidence that it is “crucified with Christ,” or that it exists to serve rather than to be served.AMS January 4, 1900, page 1.7

“GOVERNMENT of the people, by the people,” is responsible alone to the people; the creature is responsible alone to its creator. God is the Creator of the people, and they are responsible to him; but directly, as individuals, and not through some creature which they may bring forth.AMS January 4, 1900, page 1.8

“THE kingdom of God is within you,” said Jesus Christ; hence the throne of God is in the Christian’s heart, and the voice that speaks from it is the voice of God. And any attempt to set up a national conscience over the individual conscience is an attempt to drive God from his throne in the heart, and set him upon a man-made throne in the state.AMS January 4, 1900, page 1.9

“The New Interpreters of the Constitution” American Sentinel 15, 1, pp. 1, 2.

ATJ

WHEN the Constitution of the United States was established, its provisions fixing the total separation between religion and the state made it essentially distinct from all views held by the Catholic Church on the subject of religion in the state. This was essentially the Protestant and Christian principle established as a fundamental and supreme law of this nation. As such the papacy looked upon it, and therefore refused to acknowledge the Government as a true government. Accordingly in the Catholic World of September, 1871, the leading Catholic writer in United States at that time referred to the Constitution and Government of the United States as follows:—AMS January 4, 1900, page 1.1

“As it is interpreted... by the Protestant principle, so widely diffused among us... we do not accept it, or hold it to be any government at all, or as capable of performing any of the proper functions of government; and if it continues to be interpreted by the revolutionary principles of Protestantism, it is sure to fail.... Hence it is, we so often say that if the American Republic is to be sustained and preserved at all it must be by the rejection of the principle of the Reformation, and the acceptance of the Catholic principle by the American people.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 1.2

In February 1892—February 29—the Supreme Court by liberal quotations of Catholic documents, and other documents embodying Catholic principles, proved to its own satisfaction and accordingly unanimously announced that the established of the Christian religion is within the meaning of the Constitution, and that therefore this is a Christian nation. This was distinctly the interpretation of the Constitution according to the Catholic principle.AMS January 4, 1900, page 2.1

As soon as this had become known to the Catholic students of the Constitution at Rome, there was published in the United States the purpose of Pope Leo XIII. that what the church has done for other nations in the past she would not do for the United States. In order to accomplish this purpose he sent in that same year his personal representative to this country and set up at the capital of the nation his Apostolic Delegation. And by that personal representative of his, Pope Leo XIII. in the next year, 1893, publicly called “upon all the Catholics of America to go forward, in one hand bearing the book of Christian truth, and in the other the Constitution of United States” to “bring your countrymen, bring your country into immediate contact with that great secret of blessedness—Christ and his church.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 2.2

As the Catholic Bible is the only Bible any Catholic would ever be expected by the pope to carry in one hand, so it is only the Catholic Constitution—the Constitution interpreted according to the Catholic principle—that any Catholic would ever be expected by Leo XIII. to carry in the other hand.AMS January 4, 1900, page 2.3

Accordingly in 1895 Apostolic Delegate Satolli began to practise the interpretation of the Constitution of United States for Catholic interests, and of course only according to the Catholic principle; and, after the example set by the Supreme Court of the United States, declared that in the Constitution there “was inserted the article of separation of the state from any religious sect.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 2.4

This bit of history is essential in order to a good understanding of the very latest move of Rome in this connection, which is as follows: In 1894 there came from Rome to Washington city a certain Monsignor Sharetti as auditor of the Apostolic Delegation then lately established there. About a month ago this Monsignor Sharetti was appointed Bishop of Havana in Cuba. And now it is announced that this man, who, so far as information goes, has been in the United States only about five years, was appointed to that bishopric not only “on account of this knowledge of canon law,” but also on account of his knowledge of “the Constitution of the United States, and the method of processing our courts”!!AMS January 4, 1900, page 2.5

And the special knowledge of his of “the Constitution of the United States, and the method of process in our courts” was especially in his favor in his receiving this appointment to the bishopric of Havana because of “the prominence in Havana of questions concerning the property of the Roman Catholic Church.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 2.6

As Bishop of Havana, of course, Sharetti will be a principal in all questions concerning church property in all Cuba. Accordingly to him will fall most largely, not entirely the interpretation of the Constitution in all cases in which church property is involved. And thus the interpretation of the Constitution according to the Catholic principle is given a new and mighty impetus and one of the largest of fields for the exercise therein. And since it is held that the sustainment and preservation of “the American Republic” depends upon the interpretation of the Constitution according to the Catholic principle, what a wide field is opened to Bishop Sharetti in which to show his zeal for the salvation of this nation in interpreting according to the Catholic principle the Constitution of which he is said to have such special knowledge!AMS January 4, 1900, page 2.7

And how far is this situation of Bishop Sharetti removed from a union of the Catholic Church and the nation of which the Constitution that he is to interpret is the supreme law?AMS January 4, 1900, page 2.8

And now if only there can be secured a bishop of Manila, and a bishop of Puerto Rico, each of whom Bishop Sharetti is especially gifted in the knowledge of the Constitution of the United States so that he can readily interpret it according to the Catholic principle and can have the widest possible field for the exercise of his talent, then Rome will have her campaign so well in hand that she could very easily begin the interpretation of the Constitution in the United States itself. And since Archbishop Chapelle who is Apostate Delegate to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, has made this beginning with Sharetti, would it not rather be expected that he would follow it up in Puerto Rico and the Philippines? Indeed only a few days ago we saw the announcement in print that “the papal agents want Father McKinnon to be bishop of Manila if the consent of the pope and President McKinley can be obtained.” And McKinnon is already coadjutor to the archbishop of Manila, his accession to the bishopric of Manila must not be very far off. And even if he should not become bishop, this could not make a great deal of difference since he is coadjutor to the archbishop and will be the principal one to deal with the American authorities. Great things are going on.AMS January 4, 1900, page 2.9

A. T. J.

“Note” American Sentinel 15, 1, p. 2.

ATJ

NO MORTAL man has either the authority or the power to sign the name of God to anything.AMS January 4, 1900, page 2.1

“The W. C. T. U. and Sunday Laws” American Sentinel 15, 1, pp. 3, 4.

ATJ

THE National W. C. T. U. has now definitely put itself on record on the question of Sunday laws and Sabbath-keepers, in the following words:—AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.1

“Resolved, That we favor the amendment of all State Sunday laws which do not contain the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.2

This resolution was offered “as involving all necessary points, and omitting the objectionable ones,” in the following resolution, which was before the convention:—AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.3

“Resolved, That as a National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union we protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of our work as shall give aid or comfort to those who, through ignorance, prejudice, or malice, would enact or enforce such laws as can be made to serve the purpose of persecution, or to in any manner interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days, or the manner of their observance.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.4

Now, we wish that somebody would take this original resolution and point out the “objectionable points.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.5

We really desire to know what points there are in that resolution that are “objectionable;” and then to know, also, why they are “objectionable.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.6

As the National Union has taken this action, and so has committed itself to the consideration of this subject, it is entirely proper for them to signify the “objectionable points” in their resolution. And we now say to all the women of the N. W. C. T. U. that the columns of this paper, the AMERICAN SENTINEL, are freely open to them, in which to show these “objectionable points.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.7

It is proper that they should do this, because we are concerned in it. They have adopted a resolution definitely directed to “those who keep the Sabbath day.” There are about fifty thousand of the Seventh-day Adventists, alone, besides the Seventh-day Baptists, in the United States, who are concerned in the action of the National Union in passing this resolution, and who shall be concerned in their putting the resolution into effect. And, as in their estimation, the resolution that they passed, was passed expressly in order to avoid the “objectionable points” in the resolution that was before the convention, they ought to be willing, for the sake of the many who are concerned, to state what are the “objectionable points” in the original resolution, and why we should be expected to accept the substitute, and their action in carrying it out, instead of insisting upon the principles embodied in the resolution for which the one that was adopted is the substitute. For, surely, they ought to have our co-operation in what they have adopted; and we can assure the N. W. C. T. U. that we do sincerely wish to co-operate with them in every way that is possible; and we will do so. But when a vital principle is involved, then adherence to principle is of more worth than is co-operation at the expense of principle.AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.8

IN the National W. C. T. U. convention the following notice was given:—AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.9

“Madame President and Delegates: I give notice that at the next annual convention I, or some one in my place, will offer the following amendment to the constitution:—AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.10

“ARTICLE VI.—PLANS OF WORK

“Nothing shall ever be incorporated into any plan of N. W. C. T. U. work, by department or otherwise, which must of necessity become the occasion of sectarian controversy, or which can in any sense be made to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.11

This is a regularly established procedure in the N. W. C. T. U. in all matters pertaining to amendments to the constitution. This notice, therefore, stands as perfectly regular and strictly an order; and, as such, is before the union for consideration, through the whole year, until the next annual convention, and will then be before the convention for consideration in convention, and for the decision of the convention.AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.12

Thus, by two distinct acts—their own action as a convention, and this notice of an amendment to the constitution—the N. W. C. T. U. is committed definitely to the consideration of Sunday laws as affecting Sabbath observers, and to the consideration of their plans of work with respect to whatever may be, or may become, “the occasion of sectarian controversy, which can in any sense be made to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience.” In other words, the N. W. C. T. U., by these two acts, is brought face to face, officially and as a body, with the question of religious liberty—the rights of conscience as involved in Sunday laws and Sabbath observance. We are glad of it. This is a good thing. It is one of the best things that has happened to the N. W. C. T. U. since about 1886, at least, if not one of the best things that ever happened to it.AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.13

The National Union, in convention assembled, has declared itself in “favor” of “the amendment of all State Sunday laws which do not contain the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.” This action of theirs commits them to an examination of all the State Sunday laws, to discover which of them does “not contain the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day;” and then, having found these, to “favor the amendment” of them.AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.14

In the nature of the case, this commits the whole National Union to the study of the question of Sunday laws and Sabbath observers. And, as there is a regularly introduced notice of an amendment, which they will be asked to adopt at the next annual convention, by which “nothing shall ever be incorporated into any plan of the N. W. C. T. U. work, by department or otherwise, which must of necessity become the occasion of sectarian controversy, or which can in any sense be made to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience,”—this, backing up their own work to which they are committed by their own resolution, in the nature of things, requires them, in the examination of “all State Sunday laws,” to consider whether there be any thing connected with these that may “become the occasion of sectarian controversy, or which can in any sense be made to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience.”AMS January 4, 1900, page 3.15

Thus, by their own action in resolution, and by regular notice of an amendment to their constitution, the N. W. C. T. U. is pledged to the consideration of “perfect liberty of conscience” as connected with Sunday laws and Sabbath observers. And, in the consideration of this mighty question,—one of the most important ever known,—the most important that has ever been before the N. W. C. T. U., the AMERICAN SENTINEL can freely give, and hereby does pledge itself to give, the most hardy co-operation. And we call upon all Seventh-day Adventists in the nation to give the same co-operation in the consideration of this great question as the AMERICAN SENTINEL proposes to give. Let all “those who keep the Sabbath day” assist by all possible means—by literature, lectures, sermons, Bible instruction, social converse—in every way help, and co-operate with, the women of the N. W. C. T. U. in the consideration of this great question, which is inevitably now before them for at least a whole year.AMS January 4, 1900, page 4.1

A. T. J.

January 11, 1900