November 30, 1899
-
-
- January 5, 1899
- January 12, 1899
- January 19, 1899
- January 26, 1899
- February 2, 1899
- February 9, 1899
- February 16, 1899
- February 23, 1899
- March 2, 1899
- March 9, 1899
- March 16, 1899
- March 23, 1899
- March 30, 1899
- April 6, 1899
- April 13, 1899
- April 20, 1899
- April 27, 1899
- May 4, 1899
- May 11, 1899
- May 18, 1899
- May 25, 1899
- June 1, 1899
- June 8, 1899
- June 15, 1899
- June 22, 1899
- July 6, 1899
- July 13, 1899
- July 20, 1899
- July 27, 1899
- August 3, 1899
- August 10, 1899
- August 17, 1899
- August 24, 1899
- August 31, 1899
- September 7, 1899
- September 14, 1899
- September 21, 1899
- September 28, 1899
- October 5, 1899
- October 12, 1899
- October 19, 1899
- October 26, 1899
- November 2, 1899
- November 9, 1899
- November 16, 1899
- November 23, 1899
- November 30, 1899
- December 7, 1899
- December 14, 1899
- December 21, 1899
-
Search Results
- Results
- Related
- Featured
- Weighted Relevancy
- Content Sequence
- Relevancy
- Earliest First
- Latest First
- Exact Match First, Root Words Second
- Exact word match
- Root word match
- EGW Collections
- All collections
- Lifetime Works (1845-1917)
- Compilations (1918-present)
- Adventist Pioneer Library
- My Bible
- Dictionary
- Reference
- Short
- Long
- Paragraph
No results.
EGW Extras
Directory
November 30, 1899
“Front Page” American Sentinel 14, 47, p. 737.
TRUE reform starts in the heart not in the legislature.AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.1
THE God of injustice can never be recognized by an act of justiceAMS November 30, 1899, page 737.2
THE Government is no more a human personality than “Uncle Sam” of cartoon fame, is a real being.AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.3
SUBTRACT for sum of individual accountability to God from national accountability, and there is nothing left.AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.4
THE person who says the Government ought to execute the will of God, always assumes to be the mouthpiece of God for the authority declaration of his will. It is folly to try to “recognize God” by putting into the Constitution that which would deny God-given rights. God would not recognize such a “recognition.”AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.5
MORAL and religious accountability cannot exist apart from moral and religious freedom. No one can be held responsible for that in which he can exercise no choice.AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.6
POLITICALLY, Christians are but a drop in the bucket; but religiously, they are the “salt of the earth.” The earth is preserved not by Christian votes, but by Christian lives.AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.7
NO GOVERNMENT can be for religion without at the same time being against religion; for no religion can be named that is not contrary to some other religion. The government ought to be against no religion; and it can be so only by being non-religious.AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.8
THE greatest foe of Sabbath observance is not the Sabbath newspaper, or the Sabbath excursion, or any other thing of human device or manufacture; but the carnal heart. While this holds the citadel, all efforts to make the individual a Sabbath keeper will be useless.AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.9
“Religious Representation in Government” American Sentinel 14, 47, pp. 737, 738.
A MEMBER of Congress or of a State legislature, a judge, or any other official of civil government, is chosen to represent the people only in a purely civil capacity. And as that which is purely civil has no connection with religion, the legislator, judge, or other government official, can have anything to do, as an official, with religion. He can concern himself with religion only in his private individual capacity. In religion, he can represent only himself. As a representative of others, is nothing to do with religion.AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.1
“Then,” says one, “according to this, as a representative of the people he can throw religion and morality to the winds, let any evil become rampant in society, and have no responsibility in the matter!” Can he?AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.2
No; that is not what we say. Yet the “National Reform” party and their allies persistently hold this up as the only alternative to their doctrine that the legislature or other civil official ought to guard the religious as well as the secular interests of the people.AMS November 30, 1899, page 737.3
Every representative of the people is bound, everywhere and always, by the laws of morality, and in morality and religion, must always represent himself, whether in public office or out of it. Public office does not in the least shield him from personal condemnation for wrongdoing. But he is not in public office to represent the moral or religious beliefs of the people. In such matters he is bound by his own belief, and by that only.AMS November 30, 1899, page 738.1
What is moral? and what is immoral? What religious beliefs are true? and what false? These are questions that are in dispute. The people are not in agreement concerning them. Some people say the theater is immoral; others say it is not. Some say the use of tobacco is immoral; others say it is not. Some say that doing secular work on Sunday is it immoral; others say it is not; and so on. The diversity in religious beliefs needs no illustration. These conflicting beliefs cannot be represented in the civil government; no person can at one and the same time, stand for beliefs that are in conflict with each other.AMS November 30, 1899, page 738.2
The legislator is a representative of the people. He is asked by certain ones to work for the enactment of a law for the observance of Sunday. But some of those whom he represents, and for whom he acts in his official capacity, do not believe in the sacredness of Sunday. Others whom he represents—who have chosen him to act for them—do not believe in the sacredness of any day. He cannot work for a Sunday law without misrepresenting some of those who have put him in office. Neither could he work for the passage of a law against Sunday observance, or for a law against religion. He must simply leave religion alone, taking no action for or against it. As a public official, he is neither religious nor irreligious, but non-religious.AMS November 30, 1899, page 738.3
Suppose he is asked to vote for measure which he believes will work moral injury to the community,—as a law allowing the circulation of pernicious literature, or permitting immoral shows, or favoring the sale of intoxicants. Can he be morally free to vote for such measures, and justify it on the ground that as a representative of the people, he is not within the sphere of religion or morals?—No; certainly not. While he is not within the sphere of morals as a representative, he is always within that sphere as an individual, and can never escape individual accountability for his acts. He was refused to sanction, as a legislator, what he believes to be morally wrong, not because of the ideas of other people, but because of his own belief. He must refuse it, acting not for other people, but for myself; bound by a personal responsibility from which he can never become divested.AMS November 30, 1899, page 738.4
Suppose, however, that he has been chosen to office by people who want him to sanction a measure against which his conscience revolts. What then? In that case he is still bound by his own personal responsibility to do right. He must refuse to be the representative of such people. He cannot violate his conscience, but he can resign his office.AMS November 30, 1899, page 738.5
The common ground upon which all classes can stand in the affairs of government is this: “All men are created equal,” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” “To preserve these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” People have diverse beliefs, but no diversity of rights. In respect of their rights, they can choose a representative to act for them. And he, in his actions as representative, must consider and be guided by the question, What are the rights of the people? Questions of morals and of religious belief must be acted upon and settled in other ways than by the action of representatives of the people.AMS November 30, 1899, page 738.6
And even though there were no conflict of beliefs concerning morals and religion, so that there could be representation of the people in this respect, it would still be altogether wrong. For in religion and morals, one person cannot act for another. Moral responsibility cannot be delegated. Each one is morally responsible for his own account, and this is God’s eternal plan for all. Each one being thus morally accountable before God, each one has an unalienable right to decide for himself questions of morality and religion. In a true sense, from the Christian point of view, there is no distinction between morality and religion; Christianity includes all morality. And every person has an undeniable right to decide for himself what Christianity is, and whether he will be bound by it or not. For a mistake or for wrong doing in this, he is accountable alone to God.AMS November 30, 1899, page 738.7
As soon as force is brought to bear on an individual for moral or religious reasons, there is an invasion of his unalienable right to conform his conduct morally and religiously to his own belief in what is right. And to invade man’s right is to deny and set aside the right of Him who ordained rights on earth, to interfere with His purposes for mankind for this life and for a life beyond. If any person’s belief respecting morality or religion leads him into acts which invade another person’s rights, then he can properly be restrained by civil force; not upon moral or religious grounds, but because civil governments are instituted to preserve rights. This is American doctrine, and the only rule by which we can render to Cesar what is Cesar’s, and to God that which is Gods’ [sic.].AMS November 30, 1899, page 738.8
“The National W. C. T. U. on Record” American Sentinel 14, 47, pp. 739, 740.
IN the late National W. C. T. U. convention, held at Seattle, Wash., the following resolution was introduced for adoption:—AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.1
“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 to interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days, or the manner of their observance.”AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.2
This was vigorously opposed by the national superintendent of Sunday observance, and several presidents of State unions; and finally the following substitute was offered “as involving all necessary points, and omitting the objectionable ones” in the original resolution:—AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.3
“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 November 30, 1899, page 739.4
The substitute was adopted by the convention. From the statement of the author of the substitute there are “objectionable points” in that original resolution. Now we ask every soul to look that resolution through carefully, word by word, weigh it, consider it in all its bearings from beginning to end, and mark any objectionable point that it is possible to find.AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.5
According to the situation as it stands, it is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of W. C. T. U. work as shall give aid and comfort to those who, through ignorance, prejudice, or malice, would enact or enforce such laws as can be made to serve the purposes of persecution.AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.6
Accordingly, therefore, to the W. C. T. U., it is not an objectionable thing for any body through ignorance, prejudice, or malice so to use any lines of W. C. T. U. work as to enact or enforce such laws as can be made to serve the purpose of persecution.AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.7
That is to say: It is an objectionable thing to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against persecution. It is an objectionable thing to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against persecution even by those who through prejudice or malice would persecute.AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.8
It is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of W. C. T. U. work as shall in any manner interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days, or the manner of their observance.AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.9
Accordingly, therefore, it is not an objectionable thing for anybody so to use any lines of W. C. T. U. work as to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance.AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.10
It is not an objectionable thing to the National W. C. T. U. for anybody to use the machinery and material of the W. C. T. U. so as to interfere with liberty of conscience concerning days in a matter of their observance.AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.11
This is only to confirm the previous “point” that it is an objectionable thing to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against persecution; it is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the National W. C. T. U. even to protest against the use of their material and machinery, even by the prejudiced and malicious, in persecuting; it is not, to the National Union, an objectionable thing for anybody, even in prejudice in malice, to use the material and machinery of the National W. C. T. U. to persecute concerning days and the matter of their observance.AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.12
So the National W. C. T. U. has taken its position, has written itself down, and has published itself to the world. Assuredly, therefore, it was proper and most timely that a member should give notice, as was given, “that at the next annual convention I, or some one in my place, will offer the following amendment to the constitution:—AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.13
“ARTICLE VI.—PLANS OF WORK
“Nothing shall ever be incorporated into any plan of 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 November 30, 1899, page 739.14
Now let it be understood that we do not say that the National W. C. T. U. consciously, intentionally, and of forethought, put themselves thus on record as not objecting to persecution or interference with liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance. We are perfectly satisfied and free to say that the women of the convention did what they did without any consideration at all of the real thing that they were doing. It is evident that they allowed their zeal for Sunday and Sunday laws so to blind them to all merits of the resolution before them, that all calmness of consideration was forgotten; and that in this “state of mind” they rushed it out of the way of whatever means possible. And in the doing of this, they committed themselves to the declaration that it is objectionable for anybody to ask them to protest against the use of their material and machinery to persecute and to interfere with liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance.AMS November 30, 1899, page 739.15
In is a good thing that the National Union has a whole year before it, in which to consider and to look soberly at what they really did; and then in next annual convention correct the mistake in which they allowed themselves to be hurried.AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.1
And having considered the subject for a whole year, then, at the next annual convention, will they really correct their mistake? or will the confirm it?AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.2
“A Great Difference” American Sentinel 14, 47, p. 740.
THE following from the works of John Adams (second President of the United States), is quoted by the Christian Statesman, organ of the National Reform Association:—AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.1
“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for the only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged, in conscience, to temperance and frugality and industry; to justice and charity toward his fellow-men, and to piety, love, and reverence for the Almighty. In this commonwealth no man would impair his health by gluttony, drunkenness, or lust; no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards or to any other trifling and mean amusement; no man would steal or lie, or in any way defraud his neighbor, but would live in peace and good will with all men; no man would blaspheme his Maker or profane his worship; but a rational, a manly, a sincere and unaffected piety and devotion would reign in all hearts. What a Utopia, what a Paradise with this region be!”—(Works of John Adams, Vol. II., pp. 6 and 7.)AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.2
“What is here pictured forth,” adds a Statesman, “is what the National Reform movement seeks to make a reality in our nation.”AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.3
Is that so? Let us see.AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.4
“Every member,” says Adams, under the condition named, “would be obliged, in conscience, to temperance and frugality and industry; to justice and charity,” etc. “Obliged in conscience,” says Adams; “Obliged by law!” says the National Reform party. Only this difference; but it is a difference as wide as the world.AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.5
The AMERICAN SENTINEL, which has opposed the National Reform movement from the first, makes no objection at all to moral reforms which are to be enforced only by conscience.AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.6
“Note” American Sentinel 14, 47, p. 740.
SINCE the Government speaks always with the voice of man, when it speaks in the domain of religion it puts man in the place of God. Every moral duty, to be binding on man, must be defined and commanded by the voice of infallibility.AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.1
“They Should Recognize This Also” American Sentinel 14, 47, p. 740.
IN the recent national convention of the W. C. T. U., a report of work done the past year in promoting “Sabbath observance” was read, in which it was said:—AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.1
“The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, recognizing the necessity of a holy Sabbath for the highest development, both of the individual and the nation, has put the weight of its influence against everything that has a tendency to destroy the sanctity of the day.”AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.2
“Recognizing the necessity of a holy Sabbath for the highest development, both of the individual and the nation,” is very well; but why should not another thing be recognized, which is as plain as anything else in connection with the Sabbath—why should not the fact be recognized that there is a conflict of opinion respecting the Sabbath day? This is an obvious truth, and one which has an obvious bearing on the question of enforcing Sabbath observance. Nobody has a right to decide, for anyone but himself, which day is the Sabbath; and therefore, while the Sabbath is a necessity to the highest development of character, this affords no ground for the conclusion that the Sabbath ought to be maintained by force of law.AMS November 30, 1899, page 740.3
“Back Page” American Sentinel 14, 47, p. 752.
A CARDINAL principle of the movement to unite church and state in this nation, is that the Government does not derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. Notice the flat-footed statement of this principle made by a leading representative of this movement at a National Reform convention recently held in Boston. See p. 47.AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.1
That speaker spoke for the church. But the same time the state in this country is saying the same thing, by the act of extending its authority over foreign people against their will, and by the arguments put forth to justify the act. The church and the state are coming into harmony upon this point.AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.2
But in repudiating the doctrine of government by consent of the governed, in religion, what does the church repudiate? In religion, the doctrine of government by consent of the governed stands for the right of each individual to think and act for himself, independently of the authority of a pope. And this is what was affirmed in the “Protest of the Princes” at Spires. So that in repudiating this doctrine, the church repudiates the “Protest” of the Protestant princes, from which is derived the term “Protestantism.”AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.3
What this great protest was, and is, in the religious world, the Declaration of Independence is in the political world. The church has repudiated the one, and the state is repudiating the other. And in this both are ready to join hands.AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.4
But Protestantism, in the church and in the state, still stands for the principle of government by consent of the governed.AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.5
WHEN the Government undertakes to execute the will of God, there must be some authority to say what the will of God is. And that authority must be human; for while the Bible states what is the will of God, the people are not in agreement concerning the meaning of Scripture statements, so that while the Bible, itself, is authority, there must be another authority to settle the question of what the Bible authority commands. And this new authority must be some man, or set of men. But just this authority is what is claimed by the pope of Rome. What then could the National Reform scheme result in but the establishment of another papacy? And the world does not need another papacy; it could very well dispense with the one it already has.AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.6
WE have already heard from the Secretary of the “All American Order,” a religio-political organization of Brooklyn, who tells us: “No doubt you are aware that Rome is the cause of our churches being demoralized through the evils that exist in this city... I will say a few words, if you will advocate pure politics, church people attend primaries, but good men up for office and have only two parties, we can clean Rome of existence in one election.”AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.7
Our friend is mistaken. We are not aware that “Rome is the cause of our churches being demoralized.” If the churches are demoralized, the trouble is internal, not external. All Rome outside of a church will not demoralize that church so long as the principles of Rome are not allowed inside the church. But when the principles of Rome get into the church, there is demoralization speedily. The principles Rome are summed up in the combination of religion with politics.AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.8
And now we are asked advocate a union of the church with politics, or in other words, that “church people attend the primaries,” etc., in order that Rome may be overthrown. Why, good friends, that is the very thing by which Rome was built up in the first place. If the Christian Church had kept out of politics, no papacy would ever have been. And while the church remains in politics, the essence of the papacy must ever be.AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.9
We are as anxious as anybody that Rome shall go out of existence; but we have no desire to work against any man, whether in politics or not. Our method of fighting Rome is to fight Rome’s principles; and we are never more opposed to those principles than when they appear in measures proposed by professedly Protestant people.AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.10
CIVIL law is not ordained to enforce rights, but to preserve them. If a right could be enforced, it would cease to be a right.AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.11
THE idea that sovereignty over a people can be bought and sold is the essence of tyranny.AMS November 30, 1899, page 752.12