We have seen that the late decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the subject of the new possessions, recognized “an unrestrained possession of power on the ‘part of Congress.” We have seen that it even consents and declares that “the administration of government and justice according to ‘Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible.”
We have seen that the court thus abandons not only the American, but even the Anglo-Saxon, principle of government; and places the United States upon the Roman, absolute, and monarchical principle solely.
And yet this is not a new position on the part of that court; nor is this principle new in decisions of the court. Nearly eleven years before this decision was rendered, the same court rendered a decision in which it took the same position, and declared substantially the same principles.
May 19, 1890, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision in which “the unrestrained possession of power on the part of Congress”—the absolute power of Congress—was recognized, approved, and established. It declared the “full and perfect right” of Congress to repeal a charter, dissolve a corporation, and confiscate the property of such corporation, of its own free will and of its own motion, “independent” of any limitation of law set even by Congress itself, or of any violation of law or charter by the corporation. The exact words of the court are as follows:—
Congress, for good and sufficient reasons of its own, independent of that limitation [a previous act of Congress] and of any violation of it [by the corporation], had a full and perfect right to repeal its [the corporation’s] charter and abrogate its corporate existence, which of course depended upon its charter.
Than that, how could any power be more completely absolute? And that at the time the decision was recognized as establishing the power of Congress as absolute, is proved by the words of the Chief Justice in a dissenting opinion, as follows:—
In my opinion, Congress is restrained, not merely by the limitations expressed in the Constitution, but also by the absence of any grant of power, expressed or implied, in that instrument. And no such power as that involved in the act of Congress under consideration is conferred by the Constitution, nor is any clause pointed out as its legitimate source. I regard it of vital consequence that absolute power shall never be conceded as belonging, under our system of government, to any one of its departments.
Thus in 1890, by Supreme Court decision, was the independent and absolute power of Congress declared. Is it at all strange that, in 1901, by the same court, that independent and absolute power should have been confirmed and established?
In 1890 the right of Congress under this independent and absolute power to confiscate the property of a corporation, even without any violation of its charter by the corporation, was settled by the court’s making Congress “the sovereign authority” and “parens patriae”—parent of the country, or father of the people—corresponding to “the king” in Britain and other European countries, and to the emperor in Rome, upon the principles “found embedded in the ‘civil law of Rome, in the laws of the European nations, and especially ‘in the laws of that nation from which our institutions are derived”—Britain.
This at one stroke set aside the people as sovereign, and set up Congress as sovereign, as king, and as emperor, in place of the people. It swept away government of the people, and made government to be of a “royal” and absolute authority, as parens patriae, only lodged in “the legislature” instead of a sole royal person. The words of the court, stating this monarchical principle as the principle of the government of the United States, are as follows:—
It may be contended that, in this country, there is no royal person to act as parens patriae, and to give direction for the application of charities which can not be administered by the court. It is true we have no such chief magistrate. But here the legislature is the parens patriae, and unless restrained by constitutional limitations, the legislature possesses all the powers in this regard which the sovereign possesses in England.
In reply to this, the words of the Chief Justice, in his dissenting opinion, concurred in by Justices Field and Lamar, are as follows:—
Nor is there here any counterpart in Congressional power to the exercise of the royal prerogative in the disposition of a charity. If this property was accumulated for purposes declared illegal, that does not justify its arbitrary disposition by judicial legislation. In my judgment its diversion under this act of Congress is no contravention of specific limitations in the Constitution; unauthorized, expressly or by implication, by any of its provisions; and in disregard of the fundamental principle that the legislative power of the United States, as exercised by the agents of the people of this republic, is delegated and not inherent.
In reviewing that Supreme Court decision of May 19, 1890, the writer of this present article wrote of it, May 7, 1891, the following words:—
If this doctrine shall be maintained, so that it becomes a principle of American law, and shall become established as a principle of government here, then the revolution backward is complete; government of the people is gone; and that of a sovereign parent of the people is put in its place. Then the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States is subverted, and the doctrine of sovereignty, absolutism, and paternalism is established in its stead. Then also Bancroft’s history, in the place above cited [Is it asked, Who is the sovereign of the United States?—The words “sovereign” and “subjects” are unknown to the Constitution], will need to be revised, so that it shall read as follows: “Is it asked, Who is the sovereign of the United States?—The legislature is sovereign and the people are subjects.”
And now experience has demonstrated that the doctrine and principle of that Supreme Court decision of May 19, 1890, has been maintained by both the court and the government, and has become in practise the established principle of the government; the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have been deliberately repudiated; the Supreme Court, in 1901, has reiterated the principles of its monarchical decision of 1890; and, finally, the legislature of this republic of the United States has, in the year 1901, repeated, for the new possessions and tributary subjects, the action of the Legislature of the republic of Rome in B.C. 46–44 and 31 B.C.–23 A.D., for the whole empire-republic—it has lodged in one man “all military, civil, and judicial powers.”
Thus the sovereign power which in May, 1890, the Supreme Court transferred from the people to “the legislature,” was in February and March, 1901, transferred by that “legislature-sovereign” from itself to one man; for only a limited part of the jurisdiction of the United States, it is true, just now; but the principle and procedure once established, how long before it will be extended to more, and finally to all of this empire-republic? And thus a one-man power in the republic of the United States looms up apace, in exact repetition of the course of the republic of Rome; and that one-man power unrestrained, absolute; and this all made strictly legal by official acts and decisions of the legislative and judicial branches of the government itself.
Thus steadily as the march of time itself, and as swiftly as the rush of these hurrying times, is the republic of the United States marching over the course of the republic of Rome, even to the last item.
And the late decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as the governmental course which it confirmed, is but the confirmation and logical continuation of the identical scheme of monarchical absolutism announced May 19, 1890, by that same court. There is nothing new in it.
These studies will be concluded next week, in the notice of another and kindred decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
ALONZO T. JONES.
FAITH VERSUS CREDULITY.
By Spurgeon
It is marvelous that the men who most of all rail at faith, are remarkable for credulity. Not caring to have God in their hearts, forsaking the living fountain, they have hewn out to themselves cisterns which are broken and hold no water. O, that we may each of us be more wise, that we may not forsake the good old path, nor leave the way that God hath prepared for us. What wonder we should travel amongst thorns and briers, and rend our own flesh, or, worse than that, fall among dark mountains, and be lost among the chasms thereof, if we despise the guidance of our unerring Father! —Spurgeon.
A SERMONETTE.
“Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall be thy rereward.” Isa. 58:8. A triune blessing. Illumination, physical quickening, holiness. Note how emphatic the prophet is. “Thy light shall break forth;” “thine health shall spring forth.” “Thy righteousness shall go before thee.” “The glory of the Lord shall be thy rereward.” Observe, again, blessing for an advance guard and God’s glory as a rear-guard.—Christian Worker.
The Lord Alone Shall Be Exalted
“THE Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.”
THE GREAT HEAT OF THE SUN.
What Does It Mean?
NEVER before in the history of America has there been such a time of heat and drouth combined as now hangs like a fiery, brazen canopy over the great East.
There have been other periods of drouth as long in some localities, but not with such great heat.
There have been brief periods of great heat in later July and August, but not so prolonged.
The present blasting, blighting, withering, burning conditions have surpassed all previous ones in heat, in drouth, and in extent.
One month ago, throughout the entire country, men were congratulating each other on the great prosperity of the country, especially in respect to trade, labor, and crop prospects.
To-day what a change! Foreign trade is still prosperous, yet there are ominous, foreboding clouds in the commercial horizon eastward. Some of the European countries are talking strongly of commercial war; and much as Americans may boast, this would mean something, and affect many businesses not a little.
We seem to be on the eve of a war between capital and labor, compared with which all the conflicts of the past dwindle into insignificance. It is trusts of billions of dollars against trusts of millions of men; and if the controversy is not soon settled, it will paralyze capital, cause the loss of millions to both rich and poor, result doubtless in more or less violence, and mean untold suffering to thousands upon thousands who are in no way involved in the controversy, yet who must reap its bitterness.
These conditions it is in the power of the kings of capital and kings of labor to remedy speedily. But the third element in the trouble, the terrific heat, the ruined crops, are beyond the power of man; for the seat of the trouble is not in human hearts or minds, but in the great sun.
From the fearful heat, which might be likened to a great, stifling, hot blanket, with occasional holes, there have been already not less than 2,000 deaths, one-half of this number perishing in New York City alone. Temperature in the country, in the Weather Bureau Stations, and on the high buildings of the great cities in the East, has ranged from 90° Fahrenheit to 110° in the shade, while in the streets it has registered from 94° to 112°. The stone pavements and walls absorb heat all day, and frequently 11 o’clock at night finds the mercury in the lower nineties. Horses have died by hundreds. People have gone to public parks to sleep on the ground. Many little ones, not counted in the mortality lists, have died in the hospitals. Not a few have gone mad.
“For over a month,” says one great daily paper, “in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and the Indian Territory the thermometer has been above the hundred mark, and scarcely a drop of rain has fallen. And now the drouth is extending to Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. The damage already done will run into the millions; but even that is slight in comparison with the losses that will result unless relief comes soon. The thirty-six days’ drouth has been marked by frequent electrical disturbances, which, for the moment, brought a hope of relief, but they quickly passed.” July 23, this estimate was given: Loss to Kansas, $100,000,000; Missouri, the same; Nebraska, $75,000,000; Iowa, $16,000,000; Indiana, $14,000,000; Kentucky, $15,000,000; and other States lesser sums. Shrinkage of stocks in the markets, $90,000,000; shrinkage in wheat production, 150,000,000 bushels; in corn production, 200,000,000 bushels. Both corn and wheat have increased in price. Europe also is affected.
What Is the Cause?
Says Mr. Garrett P. Serviss, a brilliant astronomical writer of the East:—
Only on the assumption that the source of terrible heat is directly from the sun, and due to an extraordinary increase in its effective radiation, can the widespread and long-continued nature of the present meteorologic disaster be satisfactorily explained. Local causes are insufficient. Accordingly we are driven to the belief that the source of the trouble is only in the sun.
Mr. Serviss believes these outbursts of heat to be periodical; that the sun is a variable star; that the vapor surrounding it becomes thinner at certain times, and the heat bursts forth. He says:—
That is what happened this summer, and the immediate agency that has flung open the furnace door and sent forth the destroying blast is the mysterious power whose visible manifestation is the presence of black sun-spots.
These sun-spots themselves, he tells us, have no influence; they are merely indicators of the tremendous solar disturbances. He continues:—
The sun is subject to strange physical disorder, which shakes its system to the very center, and, like a malarious disease, recurs in more or less regular periods, but with varying intensity.
The great periods of disturbance, Mr. Serviss believes to have been ascertained as thirty-five years, and that this one will continue for four years more. But of this he remarks:—
But this time the energies concerned seem to be uncommonly fiery and intense in their display of power, and there is some reason to think that the activity of the sun is increasing rather than diminishing as time goes on.
Thus much for what science may have to say. It is largely hypothetical. And yet the word that the sun is suffering from disease is true; it is the truth of God’s Word. Sin is in the universe; and sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4), the perversion of God’s ways of working. Its highest manifestations in the moral realm, where only it could originate, affected every realm beneath it, and hence “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” Rom. 8:23, R.V. The earth is sick; the sun is sick; the universe is sick. God’s law of life and perennial health has been transgressed, and as man, God’s designed prince, increases his transgression of God’s laws, denies even God’s existence, puts insensate, unreasoning Nature and Evolution on His throne, the consequences of transgression also increase, and the malady of the material universe takes on new virulence, and the curse rests more heavily.
Sometime the climax of the disease will be reached. Not forever will its leprosy blast God’s realm. Sometime men will so reject God in the face of His unceasing appeals and infinite mercy, that appeal can affect them no more. When God’s Spirit can no more affect men, it will be withdrawn; its ameliorating influence upon earth’s material maladies will be removed, and God will let men have their choice of sin and its inevitable consequences—pain, death, and destruction. Then, with the withdrawal of the Spirit of God from among men, will come the seven last plagues, foretold by the “sure word of prophecy,” the culmination of the results of continued transgression of angels and men.
Under the fourth plague the “sure word of prophecy” tells us that the sun is given power to “scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat; and they blasphemed the name of the God which hath the power over these plagues; and they repented not to give Him glory.” Rev. 16:8, 9.
These fearful heat spells are the foretastes of what a merciful God is revealing to men of the effects of sin, in order that men may be induced to forsake sin and turn to Him, the only refuge, with all their hearts.
Men may ridicule these predictions, and flout them as of no consequence. So also did the Sodomites the warnings of Lot. So also did the Jews the warnings of Jeremiah. So also did the Jews the warnings from the lips of Him who spake as never man spake. But Sodom was destroyed; the king of Babylon took captive the Jews; the Romans came, leveled the temple, and took away the place and nation of the people so abundantly warned.
The “sure word of prophecy” will be as surely fulfilled in this generation. The judgments of God will come as the result of men’s wickedness. The plagues of God will fall upon a generation that invites them by every selfish indulgence in pleasure, lust, and power. Jesus Christ will come again; and in the light of the forthshining of His presence, His enemies will die; but those who are in harmony with His law, who know the constant inflow of His life, shall be changed to glorious immortality, soon to inhabit a universe forever freed from sin.
Who Is the Messenger of the Covenant
ARE MR. DOWIE'S CLAIMS TRUE?—NO. 2.
Who Is the Messenger of the Covenant.
LAST week we printed the following from Mr. Dowie's paper, Leaves [not Laws] of Healing, of June 8:—
For more than two years we have taken the responsibility before the church and the world of being the Messenger of the Covenant. . . . The Scriptural and logical issue of our action was the declaration as Elijah the Restorer, which we made in the Chicago Auditorium before about seven thousand persons last Lord's day afternoon. The Messenger of the Covenant, Jesus tells us, was John the Baptist. John the Baptist, Jesus said, was Elijah. . . . Malachi and Jesus say that the Messenger of the Covenant and Elijah must come again. . . . If we are the Messenger of the Covenant, we must also be Elijah the Restorer. . . . God does not rebuke us now in saying that we are Elijah the Restorer. Both offices center in one man. . . . The preparation of God's people for Christ's coming can only be made through Elijah, since God has so decreed it, and through no other person.
The “restoration of all things” was to be accompanied by the prophet of whom God spake to Moses in Deut. 18:15–22. . . . The Messenger of the Covenant, and Elijah the Restorer, and that prophet of whom Moses spake, are all one and the same person. The declaration that we are that person is either . . . a great blasphemy, or a tremendous fact of the utmost importance to the whole world. Which is it?
The above raises the following questions, which we asked last week:—
Who is the Elijah that is to come? and how is he to come?
Who is the Messenger of the Covenant?
Who is that Prophet like unto Moses?
What does restoration of all things include?
What are the Biblical credentials?
The first of these was answered; and it was clearly shown, we think, that while Elijah was in some respects the type of John the Baptist, it took both Elijah and John the Baptist fully to typify God's messenger people (not some person) in the last days, those who should herald Christ's coming; that the thing typified was character and power, not person; and that as both Elijah and John were archetypes of God's people, so were Ahab and Herod, Jezebel and Herodias, archetypes of classes which the people of God would have to meet. Therefore Mr. Dowie or any other man is not Elijah. In fact, Elijah has passed into the heavens.
Now, who is the messenger of the covenant?
Mr. Dowie says that Jesus says the messenger of the covenant was John the Baptist.
But Jesus says nothing of the kind. Every reference of Jesus to John the Baptist in respect to John's fulfilment of prophecy is given in Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2, and Luke 7:27. All are substantially the same; we quote from Luke: “This is he, of whom it is ‘written, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy ‘face, which shall prepare Thy way before Thee.”
Where is this written?—In Mal. 3:1, as follows: “Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall ‘prepare the way before Me: and the Lord, whom ye ‘seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the ‘Messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in: ‘behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.”
It will be evident to all that two persons are referred to in the above prophecy: (1) ‘My messenger,’ whom Jesus declares to be John the Baptist; and (2) ‘the Lord, whom ye seek, . . . even ‘the Messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in.’ The “Messenger of the Covenant” is, therefore, ‘the Lord whom ye seek.’
But Was Jesus the Messenger of the Covenant?
He was. He was “the Angel [or Messenger, for ‘angel means messenger] of Jehovah,” who appeared to Abraham as the chief of three angels, He, the Chief, remaining with Abraham, and the two visiting Lot (Gen. 18:1, 2, 17; 19:1); the Angel by whom the covenant was confirmed (22:15–18); the Angel who wrestled with Jacob, and who blessed the patriarch (32:24–30); the Angel Jehovah who appeared to Moses in the bush (Ex. 3:2–6); the “Angel of God's presence,” in whom is God's name, who led Israel through the wilderness (Ex. 23:20–23; 33:14; Isa. 63:9); God's mighty Messenger and Representative to this world, our Lord Jesus Christ.
The covenant is the covenant sworn to Abraham and renewed to David as an “everlasting covenant” (Ps. 105:8–10; 2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:3); the “new covenant” of Jeremiah, because later confirmed by the teaching of Jesus, and by His blood upon the7cross (Jer. 31:31–34; Dan. 9:27; Heb. 13:20); of which Jesus is the “Surety” and the Mediator on behalf of sinful man (Heb. 7:22; 8:6–12); the covenant of peace, which will sometime soon, when Christ comes, be sealed with all His people (Eze. 37:26; Isa. 54:10); it is the covenant of which Christ Jesus alone could be the Messenger, because He is the Mediator, the Sealer, the Bond, the center and circumference, the faithful and true Witness, showing in His own character what the covenant will accomplish in all who will yield to its wonderfully effective provisions. It is for that reason that He Himself is called the Covenant. Isa. 42:6; 49:8.
The Messenger of the Covenant is therefore our Lord Jesus Christ, and not Dr. John Alexander Dowie.
Whether his claim in this respect is “a tremendous fact” or “a great blasphemy” let the reader judge.
“Who is That Prophet Like unto Moses?” will be considered in our next.
“YE ARE THE SALT OF THE EARTH.”
By W. N. G.
THE chief value of salt is its preserving quality. Sin left a curse on the earth, the ultimate effect of which is death. Death and decay affect all animals and vegetation. The consequence must needs be an atmosphere in which no creature possessed of nostrils and lungs could exist, but for counteracting influences—such as the disinfecting rays of the sun, and the absorption of poisonous gases by trees and plants. Even with these ameliorating elements, the earth would be uninhabitable but for the purification of its atmosphere by the strong refreshing breezes from the briny oceans and seas. The providences of the Lord are always manifested through physical means. There is always a medium employed, whether of grace or of judgment. The sin-cursed earth is preserved, in part at least, during probationary time by the element of salt, and the wicked inhabitants are preserved by the presence of the righteous, those who exercise faith toward God. But when the purpose of grace has reached its limit, because of persistent, determined rejection from its objects, then the preserving element is removed, and judgment is no longer withheld.
This doctrine was illustrated before and during the flood. The deluge was postponed until Noah “prepared an ark to the saving of his house.” Thus the wicked were spared until preparation was made for saving the righteous; and in the meantime the Gospel was preached to the unrepentant world, that they might be saved, or in its rejection and their overthrow, God might be just beyond question, and the subjects of destruction be without excuse for their rejection of mercy.
The same principle is illustrated in a little different manner in the case of Abraham’s supplication in behalf of Sodom. The Lord knew Abraham’s character, and had just visited his encampment in person, accompanied by two of His angelic servants. Abraham8had entertained the three heavenly guests very hospitably, supposing them to be ordinary travelers, and then had gone with them in a friendly way some distance on their journey toward Sodom.
Because Abraham had proved himself faithful in all things, the Lord reckoned him as a friend (James 2:23), and made a special confidant of him (Gen. 18:17–19). The same principle was announced to His twelve disciples: “Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you.” John 15:14, 15.
“And Abraham drew near.” He was warranted in coming near to One who had treated him as a confidential friend. Moreover, the destruction of Sodom and the cities of the plain was a matter of deep interest to him. A near and beloved kinsman with his family resided there, and owned much property in the region set apart for destruction. Abraham reckoned Lot and his family as righteous, as they professed to be servants of the true God, and he evidently thought there might be others who were faithful. Having drawn near to the Lord, he asked, “Wilt Thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?” Then he ventured a suggestion: “Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt Thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?”
Abraham’s burden was manifestly for the righteous, but his one idea of saving them was to do so by sparing the whole place. Nor did he ask that his friends be spared at the expense of the wicked city; there was no selfishness in his plea, altho there was no doubt a deep anxiety about his friends. His petition was certainly indited by the Spirit; for it was based upon the theory that the righteous are “the salt of the earth,” and that an apparently small proportion of righteousness has a very extended effect. It also recognized the fact that God’s people can always count on justice being done to their faith: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
And the Lord fully acknowledged the principle underlying the petition of His “friend,” and said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.” This was all that Abraham had asked, but his anxiety led him to doubt whether it would accomplish his desire. The Lord was so willing to spare that a few less would be conceded. The merciful reply to his request still further humbled the spirit of Abraham and magnified the goodness of God. So he was encouraged to make another appeal: “Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous; wilt Thou destroy all the city for lack of five?”
There was ingenuity in this request, it was so framed as to make prominent the smallness of the number that might be lacking. And the Lord was pleased with the suggestion that He would not do anything small; for He promptly replied, “If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.” Then Abraham put in his plea for forty, and the Lord accepted his plea.
Abraham’s faith was being tested; the Lord was leading him to ask greater things, and the child of faith gathered courage as his requests were granted. He seemed to be realizing that a few grains of salt are nothing to the Lord; that He can “save by many or by few.” So he confidently, though meekly, prefers a still greater request: “O let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there.” This is granted, and he makes another similar petition, to which the Lord answers, “I will not destroy it for twenty’s sake.”
Abraham is encouraged to make one more trial, just one more: “O let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there.” And the Lord said, “I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.” It will be noticed here that the Lord conceded every point that Abraham made, and only stopped granting when His friend stopped asking. The salt of ten righteous persons would have saved the city and all its wicked inhabitants; but they could not be found. If Lot, like Abraham, had commanded his children and his household after him, and if they had kept the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, the one family could have been the means of sparing the whole city. There are great possibilities before those who walk in the way of faithful Abraham. “But if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is henceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.” Matt. 5:13, R.V.
The efficacy of the righteous as a preservative is shown in the case of Jerusalem: “Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that doeth justly, that seeketh truth; and I will pardon her.” Jer. 5:1, R.V. Again it is said: “The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery; yea, they have vexed the poor and needy, and have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the fence, and stand in the gap before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none. Therefore have I poured out Mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath: their own way have I brought upon their heads, saith the Lord God.” Eze. 22:29–31, R.V. W. N. G.
