In an article in Our Day for January, 1891, Rev. W. F. Crafts said:— It is significant that the American Secular Union, instead of condemning all Sabbath laws, asks only for the “repeal and prevention of all laws enforcing the observance of Sunday as a religious institution, other than an economic one justified by physiological and other secular reasons.” As there are no Sunday laws that enforce its religious observance, this “plank” “nailed on the fog,” is waste timber.
The words, “There are no Sunday laws that enforce its religious observance,” which we have italicised, are not in form a denial that there are “laws enforcing Sunday as a religious institution;” but we will not charge Mr. Crafts with making a show of denying a thing, while designedly not doing so. Though not saying it in so many words, he must be understood from the connection as intending to deny that there are in this country “laws enforcing the observance of Sunday as a religious institution.” A denial, however, is one thing; and the proof, quite another. And in this case, the proof in support of Mr. Crafts’ denial is not only not forthcoming, but the facts prove exactly the contrary. To enforce “the observance of Sunday as a religious institution,” can mean neither more nor less than enforcing the observance of it because it is a religious institution; and further, that the observance required must in some degree be in keeping with the supposed character of the day. That all this is true of the Sunday laws now upon the statute books of the several States is the object of this article to show. That the Sunday laws of the older States are derived largely from English statutes, will not be denied; and that the newer States have modeled their Sunday laws after the Sunday laws of the older States is equally true. It follows, that to learn the real character of Sunday legislation, we must go to the source whence it is derived. We have at hand, however, only a single English case (Bloxsome vs. Williams, 5 D. & R. 82), decided in 1824, in which the judge said: “The object of the statute is to prevent persons keeping open shop and disregarding the decency of the Lord’s Day.” In New York in 1811, Judge Kent said of the requirement to keep Sunday, that “the statute has for over a century recognized the sanctity of the obligation, and punished its violators.” In 1834, another New York judge (Boynton vs. Page, 12 Wend. N. Y. 57), referred to “the public order and solemnity of the day.” In 1859, we are assured (Campbell vs. International Soc., 4 Bos. N. Y. 298) that the statute of New York “explicitly recognizes the first day of the week as holy time; and thus it has brought us back to the full, enlarged and absolute rule of interdiction which we find prevailed in the earliest laws of Christian States.” Even as recently as 1882 (12 Abb. N. C. 455 N. Y.) we find this significant question: “Is it not obvious that by reason of keeping a store open for business, a temptation is presented to those who have no regard for Sunday, as holy time, to violate the law?” The Pennsylvania Reports furnish numerous similar cases; for instance, we find (Jeandelle’s case, 3 Phil. 509) a judge declaring that “the day is clothed with peculiar sanctity;” while another jurist in the same State (Eyre’s case, 1 S. & R. 347) declares that “Sabbath-breaking is a violation of a divine as well as a human law.” In still another case (Johnston’s, 22 Pa. 102) the judge said: “The learned counsel for the plaintiff has entered largely into the question of the origin and sanction of the Christian Sabbath. It may not be essential, but it is far from being irrelevant, to DR. BONAR has well said that “a false zeal in religion is always, in some respect or other, misdirected zeal, or a zeal not according to knowledge—a zeal seeking some false end, or, while proposing to itself a good end, seeking its promotion in some unauthorized way.” This describes National Reform exactly. “Jehu,” continues the same writer, “had a zeal, which he called zeal for the Lord of Hosts. His fault was, not that he was too zealous, but that his zeal was really directed to his own advancement. The Jews, in the days of Christ, had a zeal for God, but it was so misdirected as to fire them with a frenzy to destroy the Son of God and extinguish the Light of the world. There are countless forms of false zeal now at work; but in all cases they sin not by excess, but by misdirection. Some are planning with zeal to spread some of the corruptions of Christianity, and to carry men away from its great and cardinal truths.” These words were not written of National Reform, but they are just as applicable as though they had been penned with special reference to it. ALL that civil law can properly do toward religion and be just, is to respect every form of religion, and favor none; to be neither hostile nor friendly to any, but simply be silent on the subject, as a matter lying outside of its jurisdiction. THERE is no parallel whatever between Sunday laws and the laws specifying how many hours shall constitute a day's work. There is not a law in any State which prescribes what particular hours of the day shall constitute a day's work. There is no law that prohibits adult persons from working more hours than are prescribed as a legal day's work. If the legal day's work be eight hours, there is no law which prevents an adult person from working two such days every twenty-four hours, if the proprietor of the work be willing. the decision of the present case, to sustain the divine authority of its institution." "It is set apart by divine command and human legislation as a day of rest." "We have no right to give up this institution. It has come down to us with the most solemn sanctions, both of God and man, and if we do not appreciate it, we are at least bound to preserve it." Concerning two Kentucky statutes it is observed (Moore vs. Hagan, 2 Duv. 437) that "one applied exclusively to Sunday as sacred, and the other to holidays as secular;" while in the same case the object of the Sunday law is declared to be "to aid in securing it [Sunday] against desecration." In Iowa, one of the newer States, it has been held (Davis vs. Fish, 1 Green 40) that Sunday is "sacred, set apart for rest." In North Carolina it is declared (Ricketts' case, 74 N. C. 184) that "all religious and moral codes permit works of necessity and mercy on their sacred days;" and in Georgia, it is held (Weldon's case, 62 Ga. 449) that in that State, "as in England, Sunday is a holy day. The code denominates it the Lord's day, and as the Lord's day all courts and magistrates are to consider it." This list might be greatly extended, but it is not necessary; the proposition under discussion is that "we have no laws enforcing the observance of Sunday as a religious institution." The supreme courts of several of the States themselves being the judges, we have such laws. But one question remains to be settled, namely, have we laws which require an observance of Sunday in keeping with the supposed sacred character of the day? Again let the courts answer. In Georgia it has been held (44 Ga. 204) that the power to legislate in regard to Sunday "is a very high prerogative, and is supported by the principle involved in the preservation of morals and duties of the citizens upon the Lord's day;" while in Ohio it is said (Wright, Ohio 754) in the case of a deed executed upon Sunday, that "both parties partook of the sin of violating the Sabbath." Ringgold, author of "Legal Aspects of the First Day of the Week," cites a comparatively recent English case in which it was said "the statute, in express terms, provides that every person shall apply himself to the observation of the Lord's day publicly and privately; so that private, as well as public conduct, was expressly within its contemplation." Upon this, Mr. Ringgold remarks that "there is no lack of American authorities which recognize the legal consistency of the English view, and adopt the same reasoning. In support of this he cites cases in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and New York. In Massachusetts it has been held that "all arguments drawn from the Jewish law respecting the Sabbath are out of place, except so far as any provisions of that law may have been recognized and promulgated by our Saviour, or by legislative authority of our own commonwealth." "We are," says the Court, "far from questioning the religious obligation which all Christians are under to separate to religious uses the first day of the week, since the legislative power has exacted the observance of it as such." In Pennsylvania (Waff's case, 3 S. & R. 48), it is declared that "it is of the utmost importance that they [the people] be reminded of their religious duties at stated intervals;" and in Tennessee we have this opinion (2 Yerg. 31): "It is correct, as advanced by the defendant's counsel, that no worldly labor or business ought to be carried on on the Sabbath day. It is, at least, unseemly, subversive of good morals, and as it appears to me, not in union with the principles of our holy religion." And again; "The object of the law was to prevent the desecration of the day, which by our law is dedicated to the duties of religion." 1 Swan 413. Have we indeed no laws enforcing the observance of Sunday as a religious institution? What answer must honest men give to the question? C. P. B. Sunday Contracts in Tennessee.
By W. H. M.
It has been seen that in extending the sphere of indictment to offenses against religion by Sunday labor and profanity, and in importing into the practice of the courts the principle of the exclusion of witnesses for lack of religious belief, the progress of judicial legislation on religious questions in Tennessee has been quite rapid, and apparently without any impediment whatever to its advancement. On the subject of Sunday contracts, however, the courts have hesitated, unwillingly, yet compelled from lack of precedent and definite authority, either ancient or modern. The opinions of the judges in the cases reported show that they have in each case regretted the absence of such shadow of precedent as might have enabled them to have still further strengthened and extended religious law in Tennessee, by adding to it the decree that all contracts made on Sunday are void. It would have required no wider latitude of interpretation than has been indulged in through the desire to make profanity and Sunday labor indictable, but the judges, to whom the cases in reference to Sunday contracts have fallen, have lacked the boldness necessary to establish such an innovation in the law, however desirable it may have seemed to them, and this dishonor is left to some religiously irreligious enthusiast who is yet to come. The cases reported are of interest as showing the manifest desire to declare Sunday contracts void, and a disappointment amounting almost to chagrin, that a sufficient color of law or precedent could not be found to support such a decision. The first recorded case appears to be that of Amis vs. Kyle, 2 Yerger 31, May, 1820, which was an action upon a written agreement, under seal, to deliver and pay for a number of horses six months after date, time being an essential element of the contract. It happened that the fixed date of delivery fell on Sunday and tender of the horses was made on the Monday following. The tender was refused and action brought. The plea was made that as Sunday was not a day for the transaction of worldly business, therefore the day next following, or next preceding, must in law be considered proper days for the fulfillment of the contract. Upon this the judge says:— It is correct, as was advanced by the defendant's counsel, that no worldly labor or business ought to be carried on on the Sabbath day. It is at the least unseemly, subversive of good morals, and as it appears to me, not in unison with the principles of our holy religion. But however reprehensible such conduct may be in the general estimation, however injurious to the social state, by inducing a laxity of manners, and thereby lessening the weight of religious obligation, yet the only question in this court can be, could this payment and delivery of horses, from the facts appearing on this record, be legally made on the Sabbath day by the defendant to the plaintiff.
In support of the negative of this proposition, the maxim, dies dominus non est dies juridica, was cited and relied upon. And it was inferred that from the spirit of this rule of the common law, the payment and delivery of the horses on Sunday, were within its prohibition. The application of that maxim upon the present occasion, would be giving it too wide a field of operation. It is properly applicable to the ordinary proceedings of courts of justice. Lord Mansfield in the case of Swann vs. Broome has given a history of the law on the point. He says that anciently, courts of justice did sit on Sundays; the ancient Christians using all times alike. This was for two reasons, first in opposition to the Heathens, who were superstitious about the observance of days and times, conceiving some to be lucky, and others to be unlucky; secondly, to prevent Christian suitors from resorting to the Heathen courts. But these canons were made, one in the year 517, another in 895, and a third in 932, prohibiting the holding pleas and adjudging causes on the Lord's day. These canons were received and adopted by the Saxon kings, were confirmed by William the Conqueror and Henry the Second, and so became part of the common law of England. . . . Lord Mansfield in the case above cited, observes that fairs, markets, sports, and pastimes, were not unlawful to be holden and used on Sunday at common law, and therefore it was requisite to enact particular statutes to prohibit the use and exercise of them upon Sundays, as there was nothing else that could hinder their being continued in use. The judge then quotes Lord Coke, who, in his comment on the Statute of Westminster, said that the ancient English law prohibiting legal proceedings on Sunday extended also to the making of contracts; but also cites a decision of Lord Coke himself, and a number of other English decisions in which contracts made on Sunday were held good. From these he draws a conclusion that— These adjudged cases prove, that at the common law, acts not expressly prohibited, might be done on a Sunday; and that contracts made on that day were not, on that account, ever considered by it as illegal.
This brings us to our act of 1741, ch. 14. sec. 2.83It says, “that all and every person and persons whatsoever, shall on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, carefully apply themselves to the duties of religion and piety, and that no tradesman, artificer, planter, laborer, or other person whatsoever, shall, upon the land or water, do or exercise any labor, business or work of their ordinary callings (works of necessity and charity only excepted), nor employ themselves in hunting, etc., nor use any game, sport, or play, on the Lord's day, aforesaid, upon pain, etc., . . . to forfeit ten shillings, etc.” The professed object of this statute, was to further the observance of the Sabbath day, pursuant to the spirit of its original institution. This object is fully and forcibly expressed in its words, “that all persons whatsoever, shall apply themselves to the duties of religion and piety,” and certainly the actions disclosed upon this record, comport not with its injunction, but are directly contrary to the tenor of conduct contemplated by it. It would therefore seem to have been the intention of the framers of this statute, to have totally interdicted all worldly labor whatsoever. Yet the rules of construction adopted and constantly adhered to by the courts, in the case of penal statutes, will narrow down this intention so far as not to render all acts illegal and void, it having been decided, that to do so, there must be an express prohibitory clause. Now, in our act, the expressed prohibition is against work and labor of one's ordinary calling and extends not to all kinds of labor indiscriminately, under any circumstances. The case of Drury vs. Defontaine, in Taunton's Reports, shows the construction of the English judges upon their statute of 29 Ch. II ch. 7; an act similar to ours, having substantially the same enactment and in nearly the same words. An English case is then cited which is almost parallel in all its attendant facts, wherein the court held that as the sale of horses was not the ordinary calling of either party to the case, therefore, the case did not fall within the statute and the contract was consequently good. Upon this, the judge in the Tennessee case concludes his opinion:— So in the case before the court, there is nothing to show that the work and labor and business stated in the record was of the ordinary calling of either of the parties, but in the nature of the transaction, quite the reverse—a private matter. However much, therefore, it is to be regretted, yet the act covenanted to be done on Sunday, might have been lawfully performed on that day, and not being done, the plea is no answer to excuse the non-performance.
The next case which appears in the reports is that of Berry vs. the Planters' Bank, brought in 1875; in this it is held that where a contract on Sunday is executed, each party is in equal fault, and relief cannot be granted on the plea that the contract was made by one of the parties in exercise of his ordinary calling. The petitioner in this case had deposits, of the issue of the Planters' Bank, in the Bank of Tennessee at Nashville, held at par, and when, on February 16, 1862, the news of the fall of Fort Donelson reached him, it being Sunday, he went immediately to the bank to withdraw his deposits. In the language of the report,— He went to the bank to make inquiry about his deposit, and arrived there in the afternoon, and found—Sunday as it was—all the bank officers at their post, attending to their usual avocations, with the bank doors open, and paying off the depositors in Confederate treasury notes. The Confederate notes he accepted under protest and afterward brought suit for indemnity. The position was taken by the petitioner that the transaction took place on Sunday and was void. Of this, the judge says, in considering the grounds relied on for relief—
One of these grounds is that the payment to the petitioner of his deposit was made to him on Sunday, in the exercise, by the bank, of its “common avocation,” and therefore void. Code sec. 1723. . . . But the contract was clearly executed, and each party in pari delicto, and no relief can on this ground be granted to either.
The plea is consequently good in itself, but the parties in this case were not in a position to take advantage of it, not being able to come before the court with “clean hands.” Again at December term 1880 occurred the case of Mosely vs. Vanhooser, 6 Lea 286, where it was attempted to break a contract because it was made, as claimed, on Sunday. But it was shown that the agreement was not fully complete on Sunday, only negotiations entered into, and the judge said:— If a contract is to be held void because made on Sunday, it certainly should be technically complete on that day. If it had been technically complete on that day, a question of great gravity would have been presented to the court. That is not, however, pretended, and we think it not proper, upon a hypothetical case, to decide a matter of so much importance.
In these cases the gradual progress of judicial sentiment towards a decision that all contracts entered into on Sunday are void, is manifest. In the first case the judge, although he deplored the necessity of such a decision, was still very certain that Sunday contracts were valid, while in the last the judicial feeling is that it is a question of “great gravity” and of “much importance,” not yet satisfactorily decided. The inference from this is that in Tennessee the judicial mind is still open to conviction that all Sunday contracts are invalid. It has proved upon other similar questions that the wish has brought forth the desired decision, and the evident teaching of the spirit of the reported cases is that the same thing is not impossible in the matter of Sunday contracts whenever another case shall come up for adjudication. The Charter of Religious Liberty,
By G. W. McCREADY
AS ASSURED BY HER MAJESTY’S ROYAL
PROCLAMATION.—Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alike the right and the desire to impose our convictions on any of our subjects. We declare it to be our Royal will and pleasure that none be in anywise favored, none molested or disquieted, by reason of their religious faith or observance, but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law; and we do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us, that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects, on pain of our highest displeasure. How often in the history of nations have the peace and good order of society been disturbed by some real or fancied injustice or oppression, until the agitation that followed has led to armed resistance, open revolt, and bloodshed; while the governing power has been called upon first to quell the rebellion, and then to investigate the cause that led to it. Thus it was in the older provinces of Canada a little over half a century ago, under the inequitable rule of Church and State, until Lord Durham’s report brought to light such an array of facts as led to the removal of the grievance, and the supposed guarantee of equal rights to her Majesty’s subjects in the provinces. And thus it was again in India about twenty years later, when the Sepoy soldiers remonstrated in vain against the military requirement respecting the cartridges greased with pork. As believers in the Koran, how could they submit, at every loading of their rifles, to bring in contact with their lips, tongues and teeth, that which their Prophet had so solemnly forbidden? Hence their revolt was only the result of that inward revolt of their consciences against an act which their religion taught them was an abomination and a sin against God. And when the investigation which followed the suppression of the rebellion, showed in its true light how their religious convictions had been trampled upon,—how seasonable and appropriate was Her Majesty’s Royal Proclamation of Religious Liberty, which has since won from their hearts a right loyal allegiance to the “Empress of India.” And we, her Canadian subjects, have an equal claim to all that is assured in that proclamation. In declaring her “Royal will and pleasure that none be in anywise favored, none molested or disquieted . . . but that all shall alike enjoy the . . . protection of the law,” it is obvious that the gracious assurance is to all within the limits of her jurisdiction, and to the exclusion of none within those limits. Here is the necessary limitation and extent of the terms used in the proclamation. The opening of the proclamation assures us that her Majesty professes to be a Christian sovereign, and yet she freely disclaims the desire to impose her convictions on any of her subjects. This was surely good news to her Mohammedan subjects whose religious convictions had been disregarded. But the jubilee trump of emancipation has the clear ring in the words: “We disclaim the right thus to treat . . . any of our subjects.” And if Queen Victoria has no such right over any of her subjects, and is thus free to declare it, by what inherent or derived right are those actuated who seek to oppress the loyal subjects of their sovereign in their conscientious convictions, even those who profess the same religious faith as her Majesty? Who then are they, whether ecclesiastics or laity, who are rushing to the front on the platform and through the press, and seeking to enlist the higher powers of Parliament, that they may be specially “favored . . . by reason of their religious faith and observance,” which her Majesty has expressly declared to be contrary to her “royal will and pleasure?” And against the same declaration a systematic combination has been going on, especially for the last two years, to secure such power to the aspiring majority through parliamentary enactments, that others, who are only a small minority, “by reason of their religious faith and84observance,” might not only be “disquieted or molested,” but even fined and imprisoned, for the same reason. What RIGHTS—which her Majesty emphatically disclaims—have those individuals or combinations to the exercise of power over the consciences or religious convictions of any, to whom the above proclamation pledges “the equal and impartial protection of the law?” And how solemn is the charge in the closing sentence, to “all those who may be in authority under” her, not to interfere with “the religious belief or worship of any of her subjects!” The dignitaries here addressed must include both Houses of the Imperial Parliament, as well as all Colonial Parliaments and Legislatures throughout her wide dominions,—all of whom have taken the solemn oath of allegiance to Her Majesty,—and the several executive officers of every rank, who are without exception charged and enjoined, “on pain of her highest displeasure,” not to violate this solemn interdict! The assertion that any have violated it would be a fearful charge for any subject to make. For thirty-four years, since that proclamation was issued, it is not claimed that the Imperial Parliament has been disloyal to the throne; nor is our Canadian Parliament to this day charged with any such oppressive religious enactment [for which the B. N. A. Act gives no authority], although hosts of misguided zealots have combined to secure such legislation. May Her Majesty’s Royal Proclamation ever remain—second only to the Bible—the charter and bulwark of our religious liberties in Canada!
G. W. McCREADY,
President Religious Liberty Association
of Canada. IT has heretofore been shown in THE SENTINEL that Christ is to possess, at different times, two distinct forms of kingship: one a priestly kingship after the order of Melchisedek; the other a national or civil kingship, after the order of David, or, more properly, as the successor of David on his throne. The radical defect in all the professed arguments of the professed National Reformers is, that they make no distinction between these reigns, either as to time or nature. They liberally quote those prophecies which refer to Christ's reign on the throne of David, and apply them to his present reign on the throne of his Father in Heaven, as priest after the order of Melchisedek. In the Old Testament Christ was represented by these two kingly personages, Melchisedek and David. Melchisedek was both king and priest. Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, abundantly proves that Christ is now fulfilling the kingly priesthood in Heaven. And that is the only kingship he now has. Let it be borne in mind that David had no priesthood. No one ever acted as priest that sat on his throne. One, Uzziah, essayed to act as priest, but was smitten with leprosy for his presumption. And Christ will not be a priest on the throne of David, for no priesthood belongs to that throne. The question then arises, Is Christ to occupy two distinct thrones at different times? Yes, that is exactly what the Scriptures teach. The proof is found in his own words, as follows: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21. There is no question or difference of opinion as to the present position of Christ; he is acting as priest on the throne of his Father. And if the people were not “slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken;” if they gave ready heed to “all scripture,” as they should, there would be no question about Christ yet occupying his own throne—the throne of David to which he was born heir. In regard to this throne, and its occupancy, we will listen to the Scriptures. The angel, in foretelling to Mary the birth of Jesus, said: “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Luke 1:32, 33. Peter, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, shows that it was in the fulfillment of the promise to David. Of David he said: “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” Acts 2:30, 31. To this throne Christ was born heir. When David died, the throne descended to his son; and each son, in turn, lost his right by death. Jesus also died, and would have lost his right had he remained dead. But the Father “raised up Christ” to sit on David’s throne. There is significance in the expression, “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.” It was his by birth; it was resigned in death; and it was restored to him in the resurrection. And now, as long as Jesus lives, no other can claim that throne. It is his by heirship, and it is the one upon which the faithful overcomers will sit with him, after he resigns his position on the throne of his Father in Heaven. In Rev. 11:15 is a declaration often quoted by the National Reformers, and always by them misapplied. We will examine its terms: “The seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in Heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.” Immediately following (verses 17, 18,) are words which the reformers never quote in this connection. They are the words of the four and twenty elders: “We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” 1. “The seventh angel sounded.” There are seven trumpets in the book of Revelation, bringing to view facts concerning the nations, covering the entire period of the Christian dispensation. The seventh is the last, and closes up the dispensation. This is an undisputed truth. It is confirmed in the following:— 2. “Thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged.” Paul at Athens said that God had “appointed a day in the which he will judge the world.” The seventh trumpet opens this appointed day. The error of the National Reformers is, their misapplication of the prophecies. They press them into the service of their cause without any regard to their connection or relation. This is an error, and the source of error; it is perverting the Scriptures. So Satan quoted Scripture to the Saviour; but all who read Ps. 91 will readily see that he misapplied it. That psalm did not refer to the Saviour, but it does refer to the saints in the coming time of trouble, during the pouring out of the plagues of God’s wrath. See Rev. 16. We have no doubt that, if the Reformers were asked if they believed the appointed day of judgment has arrived, if the time of the judgment of the dead has come, they would give a negative answer. All these things come under the seventh trumpet, under which dominion over the nations will be given to Christ; but not while he is priest, not during human probation. 3. “And that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets,” etc. This can refer to nothing less than the resurrection of the prophets when they, with all the saints, will receive the full blessing of immortality. See 1 Cor. 15:50-54. Jesus said to his disciples, “Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” Luke 14:14. And again, “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” Matt. 17:27. “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.” This declaration needs a more extended examination. It will be observed that the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord, as well as of his Christ. The elders praise and thank God because he has taken to himself his great power and has reigned. This our model reformers entirely overlook. They see nothing but Christ taking power over the nations, by a popular political vote! But, in the fulfillment of this prophecy,85they see no relation to the Father taking his power to himself; no relation to the sounding of the seventh trumpet, to the judgment of the dead, or the time of giving reward to the prophets. It is their reckless method of quoting Scripture that leads them into their grievous errors; and that is the source of most of the religious errors and schisms of the day. In what sense may it be said that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ takes to himself his power? In what sense do the kingdoms become his under the seventh trumpet? To determine this question we must inquire into the origin and examine the changes of earthly dominion. It is not a doctrine of the Bible, nor of the Church, that God is directly the Creator of every man. He created man the father of the race, and established the laws of generation, by which the race is multiplied and perpetuated. And, though men become sinners, even desperately wicked, their lives must be respected because life is the highest gift of the Creator. In like manner God established a dominion of man upon the earth in the beginning; and though the dominion has passed into the hands of the wicked, “the powers that be” must be honored, out of respect for their origin—for the ordinance of God. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth.” Gen. 1:26. Here is the origin. But where is the succession? We can not imagine that God ever resigned to anybody the right to our proprietorship of the earth. Only a certain extent of power, a limited dominion was conferred upon man. But Adam did not long retain his rule. Beguiled by Satan, he turned away from his Creator and benefactor, took another for his master and threw away his life. All other blessings, all privileges and rights are comprised in this. When Adam lost his life he had no more to lose. His dominion had passed away. Now the question arises, Did Adam, by his sin, by his transfer of allegiance, resign his dominion to Satan? The Scriptures show that he did. God did not take it back to himself, but put it under a curse. Christ calls Satan “the prince of this world;” Paul styles him “The god of this world;” and John said, “The whole world lieth in the evil one.” (Rev. Ver.) Most decisive of all is the evidence afforded by the temptation of Christ. When Satan showed him all the kingdoms of the world, he said, “All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them, for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give it. Luke 4:6. Jesus had undertaken to destroy the works of the devil; to redeem man and his inheritance from the curse. Eph. 1:13, 14; Ps. 37:11. To accomplish this object he knew he must lay down his life. But Satan tempts him to take the dominion which Adam lost, without passing through death. The honor and wealth of this world have been the bait with which he has lured the sons of Adam to destruction. When Christ took “upon him the seed of Abraham”—the nature of Adam,—Satan thought to overthrow him by the same means. It is generally considered that Satan’s words were false; that it was not in his power to bestow the kingdoms and glory of this world. But, if not, how is he the prince and god of this world? how is it that the world lieth in the evil one? and why is it that to love the world, and the things of the world, is to be the enemy of God? But if Satan’s words were false; if he had not become possessed of the dominion given to Adam, the Saviour certainly knew it, he then knew it was a false pretense. How, then, was it a temptation? Surely there can be no temptation in a promise which we know is impossible of fulfillment. In this, and in this only, can we find a solution of Rev. 11:17. This is the rule which the Lord God Almighty takes back to himself; this is the power which he rescues from the great usurper, and confers upon “the second Adam.” Then Satan is bound, and Christ redeems the inheritance and bestows it upon his faithful ones. But what do the National Reformers propose to do? They propose to take this work into their own hands; to vote the power out of the hands of Satan, and to vote Christ into his kingdom. And anything else? Ah, yes; to vote to themselves all the honor, the power, and the glory of the kingdom, and to disfranchise all who will not acknowledge their right! Never was a greater effort made to turn sacred things into a farce. But, to the minority, the farce will end in a tragedy. All the Scriptures show that the history of this present world will end in war and carnage. The kingdoms of this world are the enemies which the Father will give to the Son. See again Ps. 2:7-9; 110:1; Heb. 1:13; 10:12, 13. When the kingdoms are given to Christ, the nations are angry, and the wrath of God is upon them. Rev. 11:14, 15, 18. When the God of heaven sets up a kingdom—which setting up consists in conferring the dominion upon his Son, and thus restoring the throne of David—“it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” Dan. 2:44. The same is shown in Jer. 25, where “all the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth,” are caused to drink the wine cup of God’s fury. We know that this refers to the consummation, because it is said they shall drink, “and fall, and rise no more.” All the kingdoms of this world shall be utterly destroyed, for they are all the enemies of the pure gospel and reign of Christ. And the same is found in Rev. 15 and 16, where the plagues of God’s wrath are poured upon the kings and nations of the earth, which are gathered “to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.” The conclusions of the National Reformers are based upon wrong interpretations and misapplications of the prophecies, which amount to perversion of the Scriptures. But their theories are pleasing to the ambition of bigoted professors, who find it more congenial to their spirits to forcibly compel their neighbors to conform to their opinions, than to conform themselves to the gospel of peace, and use only “the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God.”