p. 3 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 33, No. 29. (7/17/1907)

Signs of the Times

Jul 17, 1907

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Jul 17, 1907

Emblems of American Liberty

By J. Rodman Drake

“When Freedom from her mountain height Unfurled her standard to the air, She tore the azure robe of night And set the stars of glory there. She mingled with its gorgeous dyes The milky baldric of the skies, And striped its pure celestial white With streakings of the morning light. Then, from his mansion near the sun, She called her eagle bearer down, And gave into his mighty hand The symbol of her chosen band.” —J. Rodman Drake.

With Our Inquirers

By Editor

"If ye will inquire, inquire ye."

[All questions to this department will be answered which to the editors will seem to minister to the good of the readers and to the mission of the paper. The same question can not be answered repeatedly in the same volume. The name and address must accompany question, not for publication, but as an evidence of good faith, and that answer may be made by letter if deemed advisable. It is well always to enclose a stamp for reply.]

2150.—What Is the Better Thing?

Are not times changed since Christ came into the world? Did He not have power to change things? Would it not be better to join hands with other Christian people for the advance of Christ's kingdom, teaching men outside of the church to love the Lord Jesus Christ, rather than take up questions which are of no importance and only cause trouble, as they can not be answered?

Yes, times have changed since Christ came into the world, from various causes, but the human heart is just the same. God's requirements are just the same; and, we say it reverently, tho we say it strongly, Jesus Christ can not in any way change the moral requirements of God, because He and God are one, and He can not deny Himself; for these requirements are but His own nature in precept. Did He not tell us, "Think not that I came to destroy the law." "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail." He can change things, but the things which He wishes to change are not to pervert the everlasting requirements of God, but the hearts that are not in harmony with God. The divine love of His soul longs to change hearts, and He died that He might do it.

God's kingdom has a law, and that law is the law of God, unchangeable in its character, the law that Christ Himself kept. There can be no advance of God's kingdom in the world by those who are disloyal to His law. There are those who transgress the law unwittingly, but every true follower is loyal to that which he sees. Only such are in God's plan.

Teaching people to love the Lord Jesus Christ is to teach them to love Christ as "the Way, the Truth, the Life," "the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever." If the Lord Jesus Christ were working upon the earth He would do as He did two millenniums ago, He would still say, "I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love."

We have no question to present, no teaching to give to the people save such questions as can be answered by "Thus saith the Scriptures," save such teaching as is approved by our Lord Jesus Christ. We plead with our inquirer and all our other readers to make that word the man of their counsel, His commandments their guide; for Jesus declares, "Every tree which My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." It is better to stand alone with Him than with all the world without Him.

2151.—Making No Difference. Isa. 66: 3.

Will you please explain the third verse of Isaiah 66?

J. A. C.

The passage in question refers to those who are not of a humble and contrite spirit and do not tremble at God's word in contrast with those who do, mentioned in verse 2. They really make no difference between the holy and the profane, between God's commandments and tradition. "He that killeth an ox is as he that slayeth a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as he that breaketh a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as he that offereth swine's blood; he that burneth frankincense, as he that blesseth an idol." Now the killing of an ox for sacrifice, the sacrificing of a lamb, the offering of an oblation to God, and the burning of frankincense to His glory were all good things, which God Himself commanded. On the other hand, in the idolatrous world the killing of a man, the offering of a dog, the sacrifice of swine, the blessing of an idol, are, of course, all contrary to God's word, but those who depart from God's word soon get to that place where they make no difference between the things which God has commanded and the things which He has forbidden; and so the prophet says, "Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations." This is the spirit that we see coming into the world at the present time, but God declares, "But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at My word."

2152.—Winter and Summer.

I was born and raised a Quaker. I have heard all my life that the Bible says we shall not know winter from the summer, only by the budding of the trees, but I can not find it in the Bible. Will you please tell me where it can be found?

H. J.

We do not wonder that our inquirer has not found it, because there is no such expression in the word of God; it is not to be found there. Nor do we know anything similar to that. The word "winter" does not appear in the Bible in the plural at all, and in the singular only fourteen times. The only passage which could in any way suggest it would be Song of Solomon 2:11-13.

2153.—Marrying an Infidel.

Do you think God would disapprove of a Christian marrying an infidel, if both loved each other, and if the character of the unbeliever was good and pure? Does the Bible contain anything on this subject, in Christ's own words?

First, it may be truly said that all the Bible is the words of Christ to us, for it is thru Him that the Father makes His revelations to the world. John 1:1-3 and 1 Cor. 1:10, 11. And the disciples also were endowed with His Spirit. Acts 1:8. The instruction that we receive in the Bible is as truly Christ's in one place as in another. And so Jesus declared to His disciples, "If they have kept My sayings they will keep yours also."

Secondly, we have very plain instruction in regard to the union of God's children with the world. The closest union there can be between individuals is the marriage relation; by it the twain become one flesh; and upon this point we read in 2 Cor. 6:14-16: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Abundant other texts could be given from the Old Testament showing the Lord's dealings with His people in this respect, but more is not needed than this passage which we have quoted.

Such a union as this case, if both parties remain as when married, can never be satisfactory to either. The Christian's duty is to love the Lord with all the heart and mind and soul and strength, but the infidel would demand that he (for it is generally the man who is the unbeliever) should receive the first of all love, and that God should not come between the two who were united in marriage. With two Christians united the Lord comes between only as a bond, uniting them all the more closely and sanctifying the union. With the infidel the Lord forms a barrier between him and his Christian wife. Such a union can never be satisfactory to the wife if the husband remains an infidel; for there is the constant knowledge that one of two things must sooner or later occur; either separation must take place in this life, or eternal separation in the life to come. Of course there is a bare possibility of winning the unbeliever to Christ Jesus, but that is almost never the case.

When a Christian girl takes such a step as that she compromises the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ, weakens the influence that might otherwise have existed over the one to whom she is married, and places an argument in the unbeliever's mouth for all time to come. Better it is for Christians to remain single forever than to compromise the religion of Jesus Christ in an unsatisfactory marriage at the best.

2154.—Forgiveness of Sins. John 20: 23.

Please explain John 20:23. It is used to me as authority proving that the priest has power to forgive sins.

T. S.

This text reads thus: "And when He [Jesus] had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whosoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained." The power of the apostles did not exist in themselves, but in the endowment of the Spirit and the preaching of God's word. This is shown in Acts 1:8, "Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you," and in the message they bore (Mark 16:15, 16), "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." It was so with our Lord Jesus Christ; the Head of the apostles did not presume to set Himself up as Judge. He simply declared God's message; and so He said, "If any man hear My sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My sayings, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I spake not from Myself; but the Father that sent Me, He hath given Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." All of which shows that the power to save was in the message which the apostles bore, for as God sent the Son, even so Jesus sent the disciples. John 17:18. If they failed to give God's word, they failed of the true power; and that word, that message, carried by any soul who is truly the Lord's, carries with it the power to save or to condemn. This is also shown in Jer. 1:10. God gave Jeremiah power over the nations, to cast down or to build up, but it was in the message which Jeremiah bore. It is just as true at the present day. If God's true ministers bear His true message, they will have power to save or to condemn.

2155.—Going to War.

If in case of war, drafting should be resorted to, what course would a Seventh-day Adventist take if he was one of the drafted ones? Would it be his duty to fight, or be counted as a rebel?

Every true Christian, it seems to us, should be a noncombatant, one who does not take up arms against his fellows. We think that is the general belief of Seventh-day Adventists, and this government recognizes noncombatants for conscience' sake, and does not force those who have religious scruples to take up arms against their fellows. This, we believe, is also true of England. It has been tried out several times on the Continent, and people have suffered considerable hardship for conscience' sake, but in the end the governments have invariably softened the rigors of their requirements.

2156.—Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Please tell me who founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and how long it has been in existence.

R. T. S.

Briefly the Seventh-day Adventist Church grew out of the great advent movement of 1840-44. The first church was at Washington, N. H., where a Seventh-day Baptist Church accepted the adventual teachings in 1844. The chief instruments under God in the development of the Seventh-day Adventist people were Joseph Bates, and James White and wife, Mrs. E. G. White. The first regular church organization was effected in 1861. For a complete account, see "The Great Second Advent Movement," by Elder J. N. Loughborough, Southern Publishing Association, Nashville, Tenn.,—a book of about four hundred pages.

Unalienable Rights

By John S. Wightman

"God . . . hath made of one blood all nations of men." Acts 17:24-26.

"If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." John 8:36.

All men are created equal. . . . They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.—Declaration of Independence.

Unalienable Rights

By John S. Wightman

"CERTAIN unalienable rights." If it were sought to give intelligent expression in less than half a dozen words as to what was the very corner-stone of our American system of government, the phrase with which this article opens might be considered all-sufficient. At least "the recognition of certain unalienable rights" would briefly state that which constituted "a new order of things"—a new order designed and accomplished in the American Revolution; a new order so vastly different, so widely separated from the old order of national existence, and the well-established notion of "the divine right of kings" and "sovereignty of government," that its intent and extent may alone be realized in the expression of the two distinct ideas. First, that government is of the people; and second, that civil government is of right entirely separate from religion.

The First Example in All History.

Never before in the history of the world had these two fundamental principles of just and equitable civil government received recognition and become a corporeal part of the fundamental laws of a national entity, until the constitution of the United States and its adoption in 1787. True, Valley Forge, Bunker Hill, and Yorktown—the pouring out of the virgin continent's best blood and richest treasure—were the price paid to secure the general recognition of the great principle that "all men are created equal," and this, in a word, was the new order of things.

And was it not, after all, a new order of things well worth the price paid to secure it? The long, dark history of the past; the history of kingly, despotic rule, what was it but a tale of infamy and of shame, of cruel oppression and intolerable injustice, and of misrule! Without the recognition of the inalienable rights of the individual, there could be no real happiness, no genuine liberty, no guarantee even of life itself. Notwithstanding the nation of the United States became established on the principles of freedom and equality by the adoption of the Constitution, we must remember that the soul of that instrument is found in the Declaration of Independence. The order of government, the system, the organization, the power which is defined in the Constitution, may all be found within, and traced directly to, the Declaration of Independence. The rights of the people are thus briefly comprehended in the following words of the Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL; that they are endowed by their Creator with CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed; that when any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Thus, in two sentences, was annihilated the despotic doctrine of the divine right of rulers; and, in place of the theory, which had became venerable, if not absolutely hallowed, by the precedents of a thousand years,—the theory of the sovereignty of the government and the subjection of the people,—there was declared the self-evident truth of the subjection of government to the sovereignty of the people.

The Great Principle of Religious Freedom.

And it is not difficult to see that the second of the two distinct ideas of "the new order of things" is that government is of right entirely separate from religion; that religion could not receive a proper place in civil law, nor obtain in any way; that the interest of each and every individual might be properly conserved to the extent that each and every individual was left absolutely free "to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience" (or not to worship, as might seem fit), and be under no obligation to answer to any man for his religious faith so long as he conducted himself as a good citizen. When the first of these distinct ideas—that government is of the people—had been firmly enthroned upon the very pinnacle of the fundamental and organic law of the land, the people must rule that religion should be kept entirely separate from the civil state. The salvation of the latter of the two principles depended upon the triumph of the former principle—the right of the people to govern, the supreme and absolute sovereignty of the people. We find in the Constitution of the United States that all authority is derived from the people, and because of this the United States became, and is, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Did Providence Design It?

Can it be thought a thing incredible that Providence designed that a people, far removed from the scenes of bloodshed and bigotry of by-gone ages, and profiting by its mistakes, realizing themselves to be the true governors; and, in recognition of the self-evident truth "that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," should set up a government true to their conceptions of equality and justice, wherein the spheres of the civil and religious

were entirely and widely separated, the conscience made free, and the individual left undisturbed in his worship and faith, whatever it might be, or whatever it might not be? In view of all the circumstances attendant upon the birth of our country, who can doubt? "No hooded monk, no crowned despot, was to rule here." A benign Providence had strangely ruled "the new order of things"—the absolute sovereignty of the individual in matters religious! And the world clearly saw the bright flame leap from the white-hot crucibles of time and experience, and the dull, leaden skies of dark and medieval days were lightened with its glory! Today the light has penetrated to the farthermost corners of the earth, "to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people;" and the trembling nations may read as if written in letters of fire and emblazoned upon the crest of every mountain,

"All Men Are Created Equal!"

Having been created equal, not a living soul owes any apology or explanation to any other soul or any number of souls for his religious belief and practises, so long as he is a good citizen, and "renders unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

Governor Pownal, an English statesman, in 1780, speaking of the establishment of this country as a free and sovereign power, calls it "a revolution that has stronger marks of divine interposition superseding the ordinary course of human affairs than any other event which this world has experienced." John Adams wrote: "Soon after the Reformation, a few people came over into the new world for conscience' sake." Very true; and that apparently trivial incident—coming for conscience' sake; to secure that certain inalienable right to freedom of conscience, that inward and silent attribute of man with which God alone can properly deal—it was this, the transcendental and paramount, not the trivial, that primarily gave birth to our nation and its peculiar and heretofore unknown form of self-government!

The nation exists because of humanity's desire to be free from the religious proscriptions and persecutions of bigoted and misguided men. To escape such a reasonable conclusion is impossible.

The Light of Contemporary Discussion.

In jurisprudence, to discover the exact meaning of a law misunderstood, the intent of the lawmaker must be ascertained. In like manner, a clearer understanding of the

provisions of the Constitution may be had by an examination of the writings concerning it by its framers, and of the contemporary discussions of its time.

An undeniable major premise may be set forth: “to secure certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To follow on, we find that the country was agitated for a number of years prior to the adoption of the Constitution with the discussion of religious rights. While Virginia was yet a colony, and the Church of England was the established church of the colony, the colonial House of Burgesses, June 12, 1776, adopted a Declaration of Rights, composed of sixteen sections, every one of which, in substance, afterward formed a place in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The sixteenth section, in part, reads thus:

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore ALL MEN ARE EQUALLY entitled to the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, according to THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE.”

July 4 following, the Declaration of Independence was made, wherein this principle is embodied in the statement that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” As another has said: “As governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; as governments can not justly exercise any power not delegated; and as it is impossible for any person in any way to delegate any power in things religious, it follows conclusively that the Declaration of Independence logically excludes religion in every way from the jurisdiction and from the notice of every form of government that has resulted from the Declaration.” This was precisely the view taken of it as the Declaration was published.

Concurrent Religious Declarations of Freedom.

Rapidly following came the statement of the famous Presbytery of Hanover that we must be left free to follow “the dictates of our own consciences;” that it is an inalienable right; and in addition to this we have the statements and writings of Madison, the father of the Constitution, and of Jefferson, the chief exponent of the total separation of Church and State, the memorial of the Baptists and the Quakers, the public utterances of George Washington and eminent citizens of the period, all of which tends clearly to show that the paramount object of the framers of our government was to secure religious freedom for all. And as there can be no proper civil liberty without first religious liberty, chief among the “certain unalienable rights” was the right to worship.

This great truth was clearly recognized. Hence, we find in the American Constitution these words:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

And again:

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the United States.”

Thus, almost with the stroke of a pen, involuntary servitude and abject slavery to ecclesiasticism and its unjust demands was prevented, and the new nation, vigorous and self-reliant, stood before the world free and independent, the very highest and noblest exponent of the principles of the Nazarene, the Author of liberty. Indeed, the new nation demonstrated the possibility of government itself obeying literally the divine injunction, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Upon the passage of the Bill of Rights in Virginia, Madison happily exclaimed:

“Thus in Virginia was extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind.”

And the same principle that became fixed in the Code of Virginia, became triumphantly fixed in the organic union—the Constitution—of the Federal States! As Madison has said, “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a flagrant usurpation.”

In the United States Senate Report of 1829, it was stated: “What other nations call religious toleration, we call religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights of which government can not deprive any portion of citizens, however small.”

Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome, each and all these world empires essayed to rule the consciences of men. The effort of the United States has, indeed, been “a new undertaking;” it has been successful; “a State without a king and a Church without a pope.” In its separation of Church and State, exercising no authority over conscience, it stands preeminent! Its future glory and achievements as a government will depend upon strict adherence to its fundamental principles, a rigid protection and defense of the “certain unalienable rights;” “among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” paramount to all, the right to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience, without the least interference upon the part of the magistrate, or upon the part of the ecclesiastic. Such is the ideal nation! Such might make the ideal world!

True Freedom.

By James Russell Lowell

Men! whose boast it is that ye Come of fathers brave and free, If there breathe on earth a slave, Are ye truly free and brave? If ye do not feel the chain When it works a brother's pain, Are ye not base slaves indeed, Slaves unworthy to be freed?

Is true freedom but to break Fetters for our own dear sake, And, with leathern hearts forget That we owe mankind a debt? No! true Freedom is to share All the chains our brothers wear, And, with heart and hand, to be Earnest to make others free.

They are slaves who fear to speak For the fallen and the weak; They are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing, and abuse, Rather than in silence shrink From the truth they needs must think; They are slaves who dare not be In the right with two or three. —James Russell Lowell.

The Powers That Be and Our Duty to Them

By M. H. Brown

"Whether it be right in the sight of God to harken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." Acts 4:19. "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29.

Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen, is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience. —George Washington.

The Powers That Be and Our Duty to Them

By M. H. Brown

THE instruction which the apostle gives in Romans 13 has a practical bearing upon our relation to earthly governments, and hence should be well understood. From the first two verses we learn that every soul should "be subject unto the higher powers." "The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." In 1 Peter 2:13, 14 we are exhorted to submit ourselves "to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by Him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well."

We are taught in these scriptures to submit ourselves, and be subject to the powers that be, and to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, and not resist those powers, for if we do, we resist the ordinance of God. The practical question arises, Is this submission unconditional and absolute, or is it within certain well-defined limits? It is certainly reasonable to believe that our obedience would be in all things over which the powers that be exercise a rightful jurisdiction. They are ordained of God for a specific purpose with prescribed limits, as reason would teach and Bible history plainly shows.

When and How God Reigns.

God, the Supreme Ruler, governs and reigns in the realm of the spiritual, in the minds and hearts and consciences of men, so far as man in the exercise of his free moral agency will permit. If man had always acknowledged God's sovereignty, and obeyed His laws, no church or State would have been ordained, for they would have had no work to do. If man had remained obedient and righteous, no church would be necessary to carry the Gospel and preach Christ, for the Gospel calls sinners to repentance; and no State would be necessary to protect the people in the enjoyment of their rights, for righteous people need not the penalties of the civil law to restrain them from incivility, or acts of violence, because they love their neighbors as they love themselves, and will do good and not harm to their fellow men. Hence it is clearly evident that earthly governments are ordained of God to restrain and punish those who do violence to others, or are guilty of incivility; who will not acknowledge God's authority and submit to His government. In other words, that those who will not be ruled by the law of love, which is the basis and underlying principle of God's moral government, must be ruled by the law of force, which is the basis of all civil government.

God rules man thru the mind and conscience, by the submission of his will and heart to God; while civil government can only exercise authority and jurisdiction over the bodies of men, protecting its subjects from violence and the invasion of those rights to which each one is equally entitled; namely, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Powers of Civil Government.

It should also be remembered that if civil government has rightful jurisdiction in the realm of the religious and spiritual, it must have received its authority from the Divine Being, the Author of religion. Is it to be argued or believed for a moment that God has delegated to earthly powers the right to rule the people in matters of religion? Has God abdicated His throne and turned over His moral government to one or more of His subjects,—to a pope, or a council, or a religious oligarchy, or to a corporation known as the State? Such a view involves a manifest absurdity.

Surely no one can reasonably advocate the idea that there are two supreme powers, each ruling over the same realm and having precisely the same jurisdiction. This would be equally absurd and fallacious. From these considerations it is clearly evident that the powers that be are not ordained to rule in the realm where God's authority is supreme, the realm of religion and of faith, but to exercise authority in civil matters only, over man in his relation to his fellow man, as a member of society.

As all men are created equal, so far as rights are concerned, as expressed by the great charter of our liberties, the Declaration of Independence, no man can give or delegate to another man, or to a corporation, a right or prerogative that is greater or higher than that possessed by each and every other man. In other words, "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed;" hence, as those powers are derived from the people, and the people can give only those which they possess, the government has no right to exercise an authority or power which can not be rightfully exercised by the people who make the government acting in their individual capacity. Or, to state it another way, as no individual has a right to exercise authority over another in the realm of religion, but all stand on an equality, accountable only to God for their religious faith and practise, so the citizens of a country can not delegate to the government any such authority or powers, and the State can have no powers except those delegated to it.

Not Responsible for Evil.

Altho the powers that be are ordained of God, He Himself does not administer human government. He ordains civil government, not by a direct official act, but in His providential dealings with mankind. If we are to understand that because the powers that be are ordained of God, therefore He is the Ruler in their governments, then we have God the Author of all the idolatry, wickedness, and despotism of which human governments have been guilty, or which they have sanctioned, for all these powers were ordained of God. We know, however, from Bible history, that these powers have been rebuked again and again by the One who ordained them, for attempting the exercise of authority in matters of conscience. This is shown in the cases of Daniel, the Hebrew worthies, and the apostles and martyrs. They refused to obey or submit to the rulers when such submission would conflict with their duty to God, and we know that He vindicated their course; hence, we know that our subjection to earthly powers is limited the same as their jurisdiction; namely, to civil things. This is shown also by the context in Romans 13, which teaches that when we love one another we fulfil all our obligations to our fellow men; hence, also, all our obligations to the powers that be, which are simply governments of the people, by the people, and for the people, as expressed by Lincoln, our martyred president.

Limit of Submission.

That the subjection, submission, or obedience to the powers that be is limited to those things over which they exercise a rightful jurisdiction, and does not embrace matters over which they usurp authority, is therefore proved by the context, by other plain statements of Scripture, and by God's providential

dealings with His people in Bible times. That subject and submit are equivalent in meaning to obey, is clearly proved by their use in the context and in other scriptures. A careful study and comparison of the following texts will show this: Rom. 13:1; Luke 2:51; Rom. 8:7; Eph. 5:21, 22, 24; 1 Peter 2:13, 18; Col. 3:18, 22; Heb. 13:17; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:5.

From Rom. 13:1, 2, we learn that those who are not subject to, or do not obey, the powers that be, which are declared to be ordained of God, are guilty of resisting the ordinance of God, and will receive to themselves damnation; hence, a failure to obey earthly powers, while in the exercise of their legitimate authority, is regarded as resisting the ordinance of God. To resist means to oppose, work against, not yield or submit to, as in the scripture which says, 'Resist the devil and he will flee from you.' James 4:7, and also 1 Peter 5:9. These scriptures do not refer to physical resistance, for the weapons of warfare which the Christian is authorized to use are not carnal, but spiritual, for we are commanded by our Saviour not to use physical force in resisting wrong. See Matt. 5:39.

In conclusion we will sum up the argument briefly: Human governments are limited in jurisdiction to civil matters, by Him who ordained them. We are to submit to their authority when they keep within their jurisdiction.

When the State usurps authority and attempts to enforce or establish religion, or any of its observances, by legal enactment or governmental authority, we are not to submit or obey; we are to resist, as God's true servants have always resisted, not by the arm of flesh or carnal weapons, but by using the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, the power of which subdued the Roman Empire in its palmiest days, when wielded by the church in the days of primitive Christianity. A parallel case might be used to illustrate this point. When the church usurps authority and exercises powers not vested in her, we are under no obligation to hear her, for her action is not ratified in heaven, and we are justified in resisting her usurpation of power, and in not submitting to the exercise of such authority. Hence we protest against, and resist with the word of God, all usurpations, whether practised by Church or State.

What a Gathering That Will Be.

By John Harvey Kurzenknabe

At the sounding of the trumpet, when the saints are gathered home, We will greet each other by the crystal sea; When the Lord Himself from heaven to His glory bids them come, What a gath'ring of the faithful that will be!

When the golden harps are sounding, and the angel bands proclaim In triumphal strains the glorious jubilee; Then to meet and join to sing the song of Moses and the Lamb, What a gath'ring of the faithful that will be! —J. H. Kurzenknabe.

Continue reading: Sunday Laws Unjust and Unchristian