“RENDER therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” This is the Christian and Protestant principle of separation of Church and State, after which the champions of religious freedom modeled the Constitution of the United States.AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.1

WHEN Jefferson, Madison, the Baptists, and certain Presbyterians labored for separation of Church and State in Virginia, and afterwards in the national Government, they understood they were making an image, in America, to the great Christian and Protestant principle of separation of Church and State; and that this separation and its concomitant, freedom of conscience, was in its every feature unlike the papal principle of union of Church and State and its concomitant, religious oppression.AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.2

TO show they believed all this we quote their words: “It is at least impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects which profess the Christian faith, without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would lead us back to the Church of Rome.” Again, “To judge for ourselves, and to engage in the exercise of religion agreeably to the dictates of our own consciences, is an inalienable right, which, upon the principles on which the gospel was first propagated, and the Reformation from papacy carried on, cannot be transferred to another.”AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.3

THUS it is seen that the framers of the American Constitution modeled our national Government upon the Protestant principle of separation of Church and State. It was made in the image of the Protestant, and not the papal, principle. The builders said it would continue to image the Protestant principle so long as it refused to legislate on the religious disputes between sects, and protected all in the right to judge for themselves, and to engage in the exercise of religion agreeably to the dictates of conscience. But should our lawmakers ever legislate, said they, on religious questions, by that act they would lead the nation back to the Church of Rome,—they would mold it into an image of the papacy. And now of the act of Congress closing the World’s Fair on Sunday, and the imprisonment of conscientious Sabbath-keepers in the several States under sanction of federal courts, we ask, whose image and superscription do they bear, Protestant or papal?AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.4

AND now shall Christians obey (“Obedience is the highest form of worship.” “To obey is better than sacrifice.”) these Sunday-law enactments which are imaged after the papal principle, both in dogma and practice, or shall they worship God by obeying him and keeping his Sabbath, they are of his power? Shall they worship the beast and his image by observing the papal Sunday enforced by laws which are made in the image of papal policy? “If any man worship the beast or his image or receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.” Revelation 14:9, 10.AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.5

“‘White With Fear and Wrath’” American Sentinel 9, 43, pp. 337, 338.

ATJ

A RECENT editorial in the Christian Statesman headed, “A Glimpse at the Catholic Question,” closes with the following paragraph:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.1

It becomes us Americans to look at once into the secret plottings of this political church. They are striving with mighty energy to gain control of the whole Government of America, national and State, as well as municipal. The assertion is ventured, without much fear of mistake, that they have already succeeded to an extent that, if known to the people, would turn our faces white with fear and wrath.AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.2

The assertion may be ventured without any fear of mistake. Another assertion is ventured without any fear of mistake, and that assertion is that the Christian Statesman and the National Reform Association, of which it is the organ, and the American Sabbath Union, and the Pennsylvania Sabbath Association, with which the Statesman is allied, is responsible in large measure for the success of “the secret plotting” of the Roman Catholic Church to gain control of the whole Government of America, national, State, and municipal. And let it be said before forgetting it, that it illy becomes the Christian Statesman and the political churches and associations which are behind it to speak of the Roman Catholic Church as a “political church,” and of its efforts to secure favorable legislation as “secret plottings” “to gain control of the whole Government.” This is just what the Christian Statesman and its allies have been doing for over a quarter of a century. The only difference is that the Roman Catholic Church has been plotting to gain control of the whole Government in the interests of Roman Catholicism; while the Christian Statesman and its allies have been plotting to gain control of the whole Government in the interests of a system the perfect image of Roman Catholicism. The first by order of the pope has been plotting “to cause the constitutions of States and legislation to be modeled in the principles of the true church.” The second has been plotting to “place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our Government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” So similar have been the objects of these plotters that they have found it profitable to play into each others hands. Now that the faces of the editors of the Christian Statesman turn white with fear and wrath at the successful plottings of their “mother,” it is proper to make them fear a chapter in the history of their plotting to gain control of the whole Government of America.AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.3

Aug. 31:1881 the Christian Statesman published the following:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.4

This common interest [“of all religious people in the Sabbath,“—Sunday] ought both to strengthen our determination to work, and our readiness to coöperate in every way with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, and the time has not yet come when the Roman Church will consent to strike hands with other churches—as such; but the time has come to make repeated advances, and gladly to accept coöperation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it. It is one of the necessities of the situation.AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.5

As the result of this request for coöperation Cardinal Gibbons in 1888 indorsed by letter the petition for a national law enforcing the observance of the Roman Catholic Sunday. The next year, Nov. 12, 1889, the Congress of Catholic Laymen passed, “with the greatest demonstrations” of enthusiasm, the following:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 337.6

There are many Christian ... to which Catholics could come together with non-Catholics, and shape civil legislation for the public weal. In spite of rebuff and injustice and overlooking rivalry, we should seek alliance with non-Catholics for proper Sunday observance. Without going over to the Judaic Sabbath, we can bring the masses over to the moderation of the Christian Sunday.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.1

Commenting on their success, one branch of this political church combination spoke thus:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.2

The National Lay Congress of Roman Catholics, after correspondence and compliance with the American Sabbath Union, passed its famous resolution in favor of coöperation with Protestants in Sabbath reform.... This does not mean that the millennium is to be built in a day. This is only a proposal of courtship; and the parties thus far have approached each other shyly.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.3

The Christian Statesman and the National Reform Association continued to circulate literature among legislative and judicial heads of the Government until finally the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision asserting that “this is a Christian nation,” and in evidence citing the Sunday laws of the several States, “in a document that reads as if largely gathered from the National Reform manual” (Christian Statesman, June 25, 1892). With this decision in their hands the Christian Statesman editors and their allied political churches continued their plotting to gain control of the whole Government of America. They urged upon congressmen that since this country had been declared a Christian nation, since Sunday was the Christian Sabbath, it was the duty of a Christian nation to protect the Christian Sabbath. At the same time they continued to solicit the aid of that other political church, the papacy, and to present the names of her archbishops and bishops in favor of their scheme. To all this was added the political boycott, and congressmen were threatened with political death if they refused to vote for a Sunday law closing the World’s Fair on Sunday. The plotting succeeded. The Government surrendered to these political churches. A Sunday law was enacted. Something the Congress of the United States had, up to this time, utterly refused to do. Not only refused, but declared if it were ever done it would result in the ruin of the American Republic. Here are the words of the United States Senate report on Sunday mails, adopted Jan. 19, 1829, in response to petitions for a Sunday law:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.4

Let the national legislature once perform an act which involves the decision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The precedent will then be established, and the foundation laid, for that usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country which has been the desolating scourge to the fairest portions of the Old World.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.5

Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are, in the opinion of the committee, always dangerous. This first effort [to secure a national Sunday law] of the kind calls for the establishment of a principle which, in the opinion of the committee, would lay the foundation for dangerous innovations upon the spirit of the Constitution, and upon the religious rights of the citizens. If admitted, it may be justly apprehended that the future measures of the Government will be strongly marked, if not eventually controlled, by the same influence. All religious despotism commences by combination and influence; and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it; and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequence.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.6

And now that the Christian Statesman and its allied political church have, with the aid of that other political church, been successful in their plottings, that other political church proceeds immediately to tell the Christian Statesman and its “Protestant” allies that Sunday is solely a Roman Catholic institution, and in the matter of the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws “the Government assumes the right to enforce a religious dogma of the Catholic Church.”AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.7

And now after they have made the “proposal of courtship” and the papacy has responded to their adulterous advances, they rise up and with an assumption of immaculate chastity profess to be shocked with the undue liberties taken by that other political church, and assert that they are about to “turn pale with fear and wrath.”AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.8

While this political church combination was plotting to gain control of the whole Government of America, and courting that political church, the papacy; the AMERICAN SENTINEL, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church were protesting by voice and pen and telling them that they would one day stand aghast at the ruin they had wrought. While they were picking away at that magnificent break-water, the American Constitution, we exhorted them in the name of American liberty, in the name of humanity, and in the name of Christianity to desist, telling them they were but making a breach through which would flow the angry seas of papal domination and intolerance. But they heeded us not. Now they are turning pale with fear and wrath at the ruin that follows.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.9

And now we continue to stand as faithful watchmen, warning the people of approaching ruin, and calling to them and all men with God’s message of mercy: “Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins and receive not of her plagues.” Come out of Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. Come out of her daughters, the plotting political churches who have “become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.”AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.10

“A Presbyterian Paper Against God and Against Itself” American Sentinel 9, 43, p. 338.

ATJ

ACCORDING to the Cleveland Leader of October 5, J. F. Andrews, a Presbyterian minister, was expelled recently from the Ohio Synod for preaching that “Saturday is the true Sabbath.” Commenting on the case, the Herald and Presbyter, of Cincinnati, in its issue of October 10, says:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.1

It is reported that the Presbytery of Muskingum, of the United Presbyterian Church, recently suspended one of its members from the ministry for persistently preaching and teaching that Saturday is the true Sabbath. He took an appeal to the synod meeting last week at Wheeling, W. Va. Of course, the Presbytery was sustained. He then gave notice of an appeal to the General Assembly. If the facts are as reported, it is hard to find words sufficiently condemnatory of such a man. The position of the United Presbyterian Church as to the Sabbath is so well known that any one seeking to agitate it on this line is a mere disturber of the peace. We shall expect to hear of some one denying the existence of God and appealing to some General Assembly, and then crying out that his liberty has been abridged because he is not sustained.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.2

The full significance of this utterance will appear when it is remembered that the Word of God—the Bible—says plainly and in so many words, that “the seventh day is the Sabbath.” The ridicule af [sic.] the Herald and Presbyter falls not upon the offending minister but upon the Word of God and upon Him who will one day say: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.3

But the Herald and Presbyter is not consistent even with itself. On another page of the same issue containing the paragraph to which we refer, we find these words:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.4

Thus we see that the pope, in this matter acted arbitrarily, imperiously, and in utter disregard of the opinions and wishes of the priests and bishops in this country. But they have to submit, for the pope is vicar of Christ, the infallible head of the church. People who believe in and submit to ecclesiastical despotism are unfit for civil freedom.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.5

We have no fault to find with this utterance in itself. But the Herald and Presbyter condemns itself in saying it. The matter to which it refers is the sending of a papal delegate to this country. This, it is asserted, the pope did contrary to the wishes of the American priests and bishops; and because they thus submit in a mere matter of discipline, the Herald and Presbyter thinks them unfit for civil freedom, while insisting that in a matter of faith, a question of conscience, a man ought to unquestioningly submit to the Presbyterian Church, even when the decision of the courts of that church is directly contrary to the Bible—the Protestants’ professed rule of faith.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.6

But a thousand times rather would we stand with the poor deposed preacher than to occupy the highest place in a church which makes void the law of God by human tradition, or sit in the seat of the editor who hurls his shaft of ridicule against the humblest man who dares to obey God rather than man. The Judgment draws on apace.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.7

“Only on an Equality With Romanism” American Sentinel 9, 43, pp. 338, 339.

ATJ

DECEMBER 12, Sweden will celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of the birth of Gustavus Adolphus, “The Lion of the North.” “Every Protestant nation,” it is stated, “has been invited to take part in the celebration, and whether officially or not, will be represented.”AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.1

And announcement of the coming celebration recently sent out from Stockholm, says:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.2

Up to the time that the great Swede marched into Germany there had not been a strong arm raised for the Protestant cause. Always their leaders had been weak men and their soldiers divided into small bodies by petty jealousies. Then came a soldier whose reputation lives to this day as superior to that of any man of his century. He picked up the defeat-stained banner of Protestantism and bore it steadily forward, achieving even in his death a victory which for all time established the Protestant religion on a basis of equality with that of Roman Catholicism.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.3

The last sentence, especially the last clause, is literally true: that victory did establish “the Protestant religion on a basis of equality with that of Roman Catholicism,” and it has never in those countries risen above it from that day to this.AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.4

“The spirit of Luther,” says the writer which we quote, “was abroad in the North, and the man and the time had come to demonstrate that the men of the North would no longer be held in bondage by Austria and the Church of Rome.” But was it the “spirit of Luther”?AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.5

Luther’s only weapon was the “sword of the Spirit, the Word of God.” By that he conquered, and he would have no other. “The pope and the emperor,” said he, “combined against me; but the more they blustered the more did the gospel gain ground.... And why was this? Because I never drew the sword or called for vengeance; because I never had recourse to tumult or insurrection: I relied wholly upon God, and placed everything in his almighty hands. Christians fight not with swords and muskets, but with sufferings and with the cross. Christ, their captain, handled not the sword; ... he hung upon the tree.”AMS November 1, 1894, page 338.6

But the Reformation did not remain true to its own principles. Faith in God gave place to faith in kings, and the “sword of the Spirit” was exchanged for carnal weapons; and the Church of Christ in Switzerland, in Germany, in Norway, in Sweden, in Denmark and in Scotland, became the Church of the State. Says D’Aubigné:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.1

If the Reformation, having attained a certain point, because untrue to its nature, began to parley and temporize with the world, and ceased thus to follow up the spiritual principle that it had so loudly proclaimed, it was faithless to God and to itself.AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.2

Henceforth its decline was at hand.AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.3

It is impossible for a society to prosper if it be unfaithful to the principles it lays down. Having abandoned what constituted its life, it can find naught but death....AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.4

One portion of the reform was to seek the alliance of the world, and in this alliance find a destruction full of desolation.AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.5

Another portion, looking up to God, was haughtily [unhesitatingly] to reject the arm of the flesh, and by this very act of faith secure a noble victory.AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.6

If three centuries have gone astray, it is because they were unable to comprehend so holy and so solemn a lesson. ^{1D’Aubigné History of the Reformation, book 20, chap. 10.}AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.7

As a man and a soldier Gustavus Adolphus is to be honored. From the human standpoint his was a noble service to the cause of freedom. But he rendered no service to true Protestantism. The State churches of Sweden and Norway, of Denmark and of Germany, are little better and scarcely less intolerant than the Roman Catholic Church of Portugal and Belgium, or even of Spain. Protestants may honor Gustavus Adolphus for his human bravery, but they must weep for the lack of living faith in God which made his career possible and substituted for the papacy other human systems instead of the pure gospel of the Son of God.AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.8

“Sunday and the Reformation” ^{1Appendix 1. Revised edition of “Protestantism True and False;” No. 19. Religious Liberty Library. Price 4 cents.} American Sentinel 9, 43, p. 339.

ATJ

THE blighting influence of the Sunday institution upon the Reformation has never been thoroughly appreciated. Beginning with an appeal to the Word of God as against tradition, the Reformation soon encountered the traditional Sunday Sabbath. Some of the reformers, notably Carlstadt, who was professor of theology in the university of Wittenberg, and “during Luther’s confinement at the Wartburg, had almost sole control of the reform movement at Wittenberg, and was supreme in the university,” ^{2M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. Ii, p. 122.} was a strong advocate of the seventh-day Sabbath. Of his position on this point Luther wrote as follows:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.1

Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath—that is to say Saturday—must be kept holy. ^{3“The Book Against the Celestial Prophets,” by Martin Luther. Quoted in the “Life of Martin Luther in Pictures,” p. 147; J. W. Moore, 138 Chestnut St., Philadelphia.}AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.2

In 1519 occurred the notable discussion between Luther and Eck, in which the chief point of controversy was, whether the Bible, or the church and the pope, were the higher authority. Dr. Eck made the following claims:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.3

Concerning the authority of the church, the Scriptures teach, Remember to keep Saturday holy; six days you are to labor and do all your work; but on the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God, etc.; and yet the church has transferred the celebration of the Sabbath to Sunday, solely by her own power, without the Scriptures, and we doubt by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.—Dr. Eck’s Little Hanbook (“Enchicution”), 1435, p. 78.AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.4

The Sabbath has been manifoldly commanded in the Scripture. And as neither the gospels, nor St. Paul, nor yet the Bible itself states that the Sabbath has been abandoned, and Sunday instituted, it follows that it has been done by the apostolic church, without Scripture for it.AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.5

But if the church has had the power to set aside the Sabbath of the Bible, and enjoin the observance of Sunday,—why should she not have power to do the same with other days? If you do not observe them and leave the church, to go back to the Scriptures alone, you must, with the Jews, keep the Sabbath, which has been kept from the beginning of the world.—Id. p. 79.AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.6

Luther, prejudiced, no doubt, by the extreme contempt in which the Jews were held at that time, swerved from the principle upon which the Reformation had been launched, and rejected the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, but was not so inconsistent as to claim divine authority for Sunday observance; but on the contrary, asserted—as in the twenty-eighth article of the Augsburg Confession, which was drawn up by his approval—that “there is no divine authority for it.”AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.7

The dilemma in which this position placed him is illustrated in his “Smaller Catechism,” published in 1529, in the preface of which Luther arraigns the church of Rome in the following words:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.8

O ye bishops! How will ye ever render account to Christ for having so shamefully neglected the people, and having never for a moment exercised your office! May the Judgment not overtake you! You command communion in one kind, and urge your human ordinances; but never ask in the meantime, whether the people know the Lord’s prayer, the ten commandments, or any part of God’s Word. Woe, woe unto you everlastingly! ^{4Dr. Martin Luther’s “Smaller Catechism.” Explained in Questions and Answers, by Dr. J. C. Dietrich, p. 2. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo., 1853.}AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.9

In the same connection he instructs his ministers “first of all to teach the text of the ten commandments,” ^{5Id. p. 4.} and yet in the same book he violates his own instruction, and instead of teaching the text of the Sabbath commandment, he followed in the footsteps of Rome and supplanted it with the meaningless, indefinite, evasive, human makeshift, “Thou shalt sanctify the holy day.” ^{6Id. p. 7.}AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.10

One feels like condoning this mistake when it is remembered what a herculean task was undertaken by him. Luther doubtless unearthed from their covering of human tradition, more precious gems of truth, than any other one man since the time of Christ, but he was not without his mistakes,—mistakes which instead of being rectified by those who profess to be his legitimate successors, have in the matter of Sabbath, been intensified. They now declare that there have been “transferred to it [Sunday] all the honors of the Jewish Sabbath;” ^{7Id. p. 43.} and although asserting in this same connection that “Christians are at liberty to appoint any day for worship,” ^8Id. immediately pronounce the death sentence upon the one who violates their unscriptural, man-made Sabbath.AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.11

What is the particular threat and penalty annexed to this commandment? [The commandment they have made.]AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.12

Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:13. ^{9Id, p. 52.}AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.13

Having abolished the Sabbath of the Lord under pretext of Christian liberty, and having put in its place a human ordinance in conflict with it, which, for want of scripture they are unable to enforce, they next attempt to re-enact the penalty for the transgression of that law under the theocracy, and apply it to the transgression of a man-made institution. All this is done in the face of the statement from the same book that the Holy Scriptures are a “perfectly sure and sufficient standard, according to which all other says, writings, and doctrines are to be judged, so that what accords with them must be received, what is in conflict with them must be rejected.” ^{10Ib. p. 117.} Does the command, “Thou shalt sanctify the holy day” (the first day of the week) accord with the Holy Scriptures which command, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,” etc.?AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.14

The next step in this beaten path of error, is the attempt to secure the observance of this unscriptural, man-made Sabbath by means of the strong arm of civil law. This step the professed followers of Luther are now beginning to take. Rev. F. W. Conrad, D.D., of Philadelphia, editor of the Lutheran Observer, appeared Dec. 13, 1888, before the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor, at a hearing given the friends of the Blair Sunday bill, and represented that the German Lutherans were in favor of compelling the observance of Sunday by civil law. The following are his words as reported and published by the Government:—AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.15

I desire to speak for the evangelical portion of the German emigrants who are Lutherans and also reformed evangelical Christians, as we call them. In regard to their position on the Sabbath, while they differ relatively as to the basis on which the Christian Sabbath now rests, and also in regard to the manner of observing the Sabbath, they are, I should say, universally in favor of maintaining the Sabbath laws that exist in America. ^{11Senate Miscellaneous Documents, No. 50, 50th Congress. 2nd Section, p. 40.}AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.16

We know of individual Lutheran ministers who are not “in favor of maintaining the Sabbath laws that exist in America,” but we fear that Dr. Conrad’s representation is true of the majority.AMS November 1, 1894, page 339.17

October 25, 1894

November 8, 1894