Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · July 16, 1896
RELIGION AND PATRIOTISM.
By S.
PATRIOTISM, whatever it may mean in other lands, stands with us for devotion to those principles which gave this country an independent and exalted place among the nations of the earth. Love of country, in the American's heart, ought to be inseparably linked with that love of liberty which moved the founders of our Republic to brave the wrath and power of a despotic king, that on these shores liberty might dwell secure, and breathe from them her benign spirit over the nations of mankind.
American patriotism, of the true sort, has not changed since the days of Washington, Madison, and Jefferson. It is true that the times have changed, and that Americans to-day have largely lost sight of the principles which guided our forefathers in laying the foundations of a free government. But the patriotism which prompted the laying of that foundation should also actuate every subsequent move in rearing the national edifice. The patriotism of the noble men of those times was that which gave birth to the Declaration of Independence. That immortal document fixed the standard of patriotism for all coming generations. A patriotism which does not indorse its utterances in behalf of liberty and justice for all mankind, is not worth having.
Jefferson foresaw that the ideals and purposes which shaped the nation's course in his own day, would not always prevail. The following words penned by him, seem, in the light of the conditions prevailing to-day, almost prophetic:—
Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecution, and better men be his victims. . . . From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.
Jefferson's prophecy has been fulfilled. The spirit of the times has changed, our rulers have become corrupt, and the people are far more intent upon getting wealth than upon guarding their rights. And one of the most ominous signs of the times to-day is that an effort is being made to confound patriotism, in the public mind, with religion. The deadly foes of liberty are ever lurking in the jungle of religious bigotry. Misguided zealots are ready to improve every opportunity to turn the tide of enthusiasm for the country's welfare into some channel where its power will be expended for the exaltation of church or dogma; while others in position of influence, laboring under mistaken conceptions of patriotism, are exerting their influence to the same end. An illustration in point is furnished by a sermon delivered Sunday, July 5, by the pastor of the Central M. E. Church of Detroit, Mich. As reported in the Evening News, of the following day, the speaker “said that the three great foes of patriotism were ignorance, intemperance and irreligion. In discussing the latter, he deplored the extreme license which is given to atheists, both as to their utterances and their pens, and quoted a sweeping resolution recently passed by a body of people who resolved to do away with the Bible and religion and all religious services. It is unpatriotic to utter such sentiments, and it is unpatriotic to permit them to be uttered without a protest. We cannot control thought if we would. Every man has the right to think as he honestly believes; but no man has the right to insult the religious opinions of another.
“A representative of the News asked Mr. Thoburn [the speaker] if he could recommend any way in which such things might be prevented, and he replied: ‘I don't wish to be understood as opposing free speech, but I do urge that people protest against irreligious utterances. If that was universally done, a sense of propriety would restrain many men who make such utterances. It is offensive to a great majority of people, and their propriety governs in many things where there is no law.’”
Thus it is laid down that to permit irreligious utterances on the part of others without a protest, is unpatriotic. The SENTINEL has no sympathy for atheism or infidelity, nor would it scoff at any religion; but there are a great variety of religions, even among people who take the general name of “Christians;” and the question of which religion is the true one is a theme of perpetual dispute. To hold and advocate the tenets of one of these bodies, is in many cases to “insult the religious opinions” of people in another “Christian” body. For example, there is abundance of evidence to be had from the courts of law, that the doctrine that the seventh day is the Sabbath, when faithfully put in practice, is a deadly insult to the religious opinions of some who believe in the first-day sabbath. And “to insult the religious opinions of another,” we are told, is unpatriotic. The point is one which very many are ready to receive without argument.
The tenet that the dead are unconscious, is almost equally “insulting” to the opinions of certain ones who hold to the doctrine of the soul's immortality. And so with regard to other doctrines which might be mentioned. “Religion” means in the mind of the one speaking in its defense, those doctrines which he believes to be of divine origin. The “irreligious” utterance to which he would take exception, would be any utterance against his own religious views. The utterances of one sect regarding religion would necessarily be irreligious and “unpatriotic” to other sects, when once the domain of “patriotism” is extended into the sphere of religion.
The patriotism of the men who founded this nation, excluded all opposition to their fellowmen which could be based on religious grounds. When in 1779 it was proposed to establish religion in the State of Virginia, by a provision appropriating public money for the support of “teachers of the Christian religion,” Madison, Jefferson, and others, promptly protested against it, setting forth the unalienable right of every man to believe and practice whatever religion he may deem to be true, and that in this he “can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” That was the attitude of their patriotism towards religion. It was218friendly toward all classes of the people, discriminating against none on religious grounds, whether believers in religion or not.
Only such patriotism would be consistent with the Declaration of Independence, to which they had themselves given birth; for that Declaration was based upon the equality of all men in point of their natural rights, among which were cited “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And that is the genuine brand of American patriotism to-day.
But, sad to say, there is abundant occasion for regret that this patriotism is not more general. It is a sad fact that most men are more readily attracted by the transient and often erratic brilliance of personality, than by the steady light of principle; and so it has been in this land from Jefferson's time down to our own. The multitudes have been more intent upon following their great political leaders, than in being guided by the political principles upon which the nation was established. And to-day those principles have been so far lost sight of by the people, that the grand documents in which they are embodied—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States—are violated and set aside by legislation and judicial decisions, with scarcely a protest from those whose rights such actions so vitally concern.
We seem, indeed, to be upon the eve of the time to which Jefferson alluded, when our rights are either to revive or expire in a convulsion.
S.
DIVINE AND HUMAN GOVERNMENT.
The theory of legislation upon religious duties and questions is radically opposed to the teaching of the Scriptures of divine truth, which plainly declare that “every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”
This text plainly asserts our accountability to God. From other scriptures we learn the scope of this accountability; that it has reference, first, to our duty toward God; second, to our duty toward our fellowman. The first and great commandment of the law is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;” “and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” And our Lord adds, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
All Sin is Against God.
But while we have duty toward our fellowman, failure to perform that duty is not, as we sometimes loosely say, sin against man, but is sin against God. It is God’s law that defines our duty toward our fellows, and the violation of that law is sin. “Whosoever committeth sin,” says the apostle, “transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law;” the divine law, of course; and so, in the fifty-first Psalm, we find David confessing to God the wrong done to Uriah, in these words: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned.” The wrong was done to a man; the sin was against God; and to God the transgressor was accountable. “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God,” both for our sins against God and our wrongs to our fellowmen. All sin is, without qualification, against God. And he it is who “shall bring every work into judgment with every secret thing whether it be good or evil.”
God the Only Moral Governor.
God is the great and only moral governor. To him, and to him alone, every soul is morally responsible. In the very nature of things this could not be otherwise; because to permit any power whatever to come between the soul and God would be to destroy individual responsibility to God.
Man the Conservator of His Own Rights.
But man is a social as well as a moral being; and as such he is endowed with “certain unalienable rights;” to him God has committed the preservation of these rights by means of civil government. This truth is thus expressed in the American Declaration of Independence:—
“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.”
To disregard these rights or to trample upon them is to wrong our fellowmen and so to sin against God. The sin, if not repented of and forgiven, God will punish in his own time; the wrong may be dealt with by our fellows in their organized capacity as a State. And it is this fact that restrains from deeds of violence and injustice, many who have not the fear of God before them. This safeguard to liberty and natural rights, the God who sends his rain upon the just and upon the unjust, has given to man. Its benefits accrue alike to the righteous and to the wicked. The powers of civil government are exercised alike by and for Jew and Gentile, pagan and Christian. Hence civil government is not in any sense Christian, but is humanitarian, that is, it is given, like marriage, for the good of the race.
It must be at once apparent that there is nothing necessarily evil either in civil government or in its administration and use. God feeds and clothes us by ordaining means whereby we may secure food and clothing. Our natural wants are seldom supplied by miraculous interposition. “It is only in cases of great emergency that the Lord interposes for us.”
We glorify God in the proper use of the means which he has given us. Marriage, one of the Creator’s best gifts to man, is often perverted and abused; but this fact does not vitiate the marriage institution. In like manner civil government, ordained of God to be a blessing, and specially to the people of God, that they “may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty,” is often abused and made the engine of oppression. But it still remains true that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” The power to do justice and judgment, to protect the weak and punish the evil-doer, is as truly divine in its origin and as God-honoring in its proper exercise as is the power to cultivate the soil or to reap the fruits of the earth.
Why Man is Made the Guardian of His Own Rights.
Man has been made the guardian of his own civil rights, not by an arbitrary arrangement on the part of the Creator, but for wise and beneficent reasons which we can readily discern and comprehend. God committed to men, not the administration of his law, nor any part of it, but the maintenance of those rights which reason teaches that all intelligent moral beings should enjoy in common; those self-evident rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Had God made civil government Christian, and commissioned men to administer his law, and to require of their fellows the discharge of duties due to the Divine Being, or even to administer the divine law as regards the duties which as social beings we owe to one another, it would necessarily have destroyed moral responsibility to God. On the other hand, had God not committed to men the power to regulate to some extent their social relation in order that their natural rights might be preserved, but had himself administered civil justice, one of two things would have followed; either vengeance would have been so swift and certain as to defeat the very design of God in making man a free moral agent, or else punishment would have been so long delayed as to afford no protection to those in need of it. It was absolutely necessary that man should be the guardian of his own rights in this world, and for the temporary concerns of this world, but that this should in no way affect his individual moral responsibility to the Creator. Nor should men make it a pretext for assuming to exercise authority which belongs alone to God.
That the principle here stated is the correct and spiritual one, is clear from the words of Christ when the Pharisees sought to entangle him in his talk. They asked him the question: “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?” But he, understanding their purpose, said: “Show me the tribute money.” And they brought unto him a penny. And he said unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Cæsar’s. Then said he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” In this, Christ plainly separated between civil and moral duties. The paying of tribute was simply a civil matter. They were living under Cæsar’s government and it was right that they should contribute to the support of the government; and yet this was not an absolute moral duty, but rather one growing out of the surroundings, and in some cases even something to be done merely to avoid offense. It was for this reason that Christ himself paid tribute, as we learn from Matt. 17: 24–27.
Civil Government Not Anti-Christian.
As before remarked, civil government is not Christian neither is it anti-Christian; it simply has no religious character; and like other men, the Christian must live under it and is privileged to enjoy its protection, and may even take part in it.
Aside from the Godly men who exercised authority under the Theocracy, there are notable instances of other good men who took part in the affairs of government. Abraham was a nomadic chief, and when necessity arose, marshalled his forces and conducted a vigorous and successful campaign against the free-booters who had robbed Lot and had carried him away captive. And in this Abraham was actuated by no unworthy motive. Of this victory it has been well said by another, “To Abraham, under God, was the triumph due. The worshipper of Jehovah had not only rendered a great service to the country, but had proved himself a man of valor. It was seen that righteousness is not cowardice, and that Abraham’s religion made him courageous in maintaining the right and defending the oppressed.”
The history of this event in Abraham’s life also brings to view the fact that Melchizedec,219a “priest of the most high God,” was king of Salem, and that he came out to welcome Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings, and “as ‘priest to the most high God’ he pronounced a blessing upon Abraham, and gave thanks to the Lord, who had wrought so great a deliverance by his servant. And Abraham ‘gave him tithes of all.’”
Subsequently we have the history of Joseph, who, in the providence of God, became governor over all the land of Egypt with authority second only to the king. Then, too, Daniel and his three companions, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, held high official positions in the kingdom of Babylon. Nor is this strange since we are plainly told that “the powers that be are ordained of God,” that magistrates “are his ministers” “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil;” and we are exhorted by the apostles to pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”
Quietness and peace are essential to the enjoyment of life and liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness, which the Declaration of Independence enumerates as among those unalienable rights which governments are instituted to preserve. Thus the Christian’s true attitude toward civil government is quiet submission in all things civil; rendering to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. But to do this, that is, to render to God that which belongs to God, he who would render it, must, in the things rendered to God, be absolutely independent of any human authority. In those things, his allegiance must be paid to God. And as a matter of history, we find that this has always been the attitude of the servants of God. This was the case with Shadrach, Meshac, and Abed-nego, who, for refusing to bow before the great image in the plain of Dura, were cast into the fiery furnace. It was also the case with Daniel, who, though prime minister of the empire, disobeyed a “law” of the king. It was also the case with Peter and John, who, when commanded by the magistrates contrary to the word of the Lord, answered, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”
Christ’s Answer to the Pharisees.
In all these cases the civil rulers sought to usurp authority which belonged alone to God, and the servants of God refused obedience and quietly submitted to the punishment inflicted, protesting, however, against the injustice and maintaining their innocence while declaring boldly their purpose not to yield to Cæsar the things that belong to God.
The same course was pursued by Christians until apostasy began to corrupt the primitive simplicity of the gospel. The followers of Christ ever yielded cheerful obedience to all in authority in all civil matters, but they went to the block and the stake rather than yield an iota of their soul-liberty. So persistent were they in maintaining this individual responsibility directly to God, that their teaching upon this subject so permeated the Roman Empire that by the year A. D. 319, the most perfect religious freedom that ever existed under any government, except our own, was granted in Rome, and was enjoyed by all, both Pagans and Christians, until apostate Christians themselves sought to established in Rome a man-made theocracy and denied to others the very rights which only a few years before they had claimed for themselves. And in so doing they violated not only the principles for which they had formerly contended but they set at nought the fundamental law of Christianity itself, as laid down by its Author: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOR.
The most conspicuous, if not the most important, event of the past few days, in the sphere of religious activity, is the national Christian Endeavor convention at Washington, D. C., which closed its session July. 13.
Touching, as this organization does, with all the force of immense numbers and youthful enthusiasm, not only the religious but also the political spheres of our public life, it is incumbent upon American citizens of every class to understand its character and aims, and take note of what it is doing.
Already the question of the true nature of Christian endeavor—if it was ever seriously considered in the organization—has been settled as not excluding the use of political methods for applying its great power in the settlement of religious and moral questions. It only remains now to make its power felt through those methods in the most effective way.
But this all-important question of the nature of true Christian endeavor has not been rightly settled. The assumption that it can rightfully proceed along political lines is altogether erroneous. That the error has been assumed, rather than deliberately adopted, by the great masses of Endeavorers at least, we have no reason to doubt. It is from this standpoint that the SENTINEL challenges the advancing hosts of the youthful army. It would point out to them that as Christian young men and women they are not moving in accordance with their marching orders. An anecdote of the great Wellington relates that on one occasion, while seated with some Christian friends, he read the commission of Christ to his disciples, instructing them to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and turned to his friends with the exclamation, “There are your marching orders.” He was right. The marching orders of the Lord Jesus Christ to his followers send them forth throughout all nations to preach the gospel of salvation from sin. To disregard these orders is to move to certain disaster. Zeal cannot compensate for lack of knowledge.
What is it to preach the gospel? The word of God must tell us. That word tells us that the gospel of God “is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” Rom. 1:16. The Scriptures tell us further that the power of God is in his word. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” Ps. 33:6. He who believes the word of God receives the power of God that is in it unto his salvation. There was power in that word to create man in the beginning; there is power in it now to recreate man in the image of Jesus Christ. That is the gospel. That is what Christians are commissioned to preach to all the world. Two things are essential in its operation,—the word of God and faith on the part of him who hears it. The word of God, and that alone, must be proclaimed, for it alone has saving power, and it must be indorsed by the individual who would receive any benefit from it.
But political methods know nothing of faith. And knowing nothing of faith, they know nothing of the power of God unto salvation. Hence they cannot possibly be Christian. The Christian Endeavor organization possesses immense force. As a political power it can compel many changes in city and State legislation and government. But it has not force enough to push a soul into heaven, or pull it away from a single sin. Not all the power in the world, whether exercised through the ballot or through the bayonet, can force any individual one step from sin into righteousness.
The force of legislation or of public sentiment may restrain one from crime, and to this end force is legitimate and necessary in civil government; but salvation from crime is not salvation from sin. Christianity deals with sin. The mission of Christ in this world is to save people from sin. This, therefore, must be the purpose of all true Christian endeavor.
Only the power of God can save any person from sin, and this power cannot operate for salvation except through faith. Without faith no virtue attaches to any religious act; on the contrary, it becomes actual sin, for “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Rom. 14:23. The result of force in religion, therefore, is evident; it can produce nothing but sin. The individual who observes the sabbath because of the force of human law or public sentiment, commits actual sin in so doing. Religious observances without faith are but a mockery. To endeavor to force people to mock God with empty forms, is not Christian. Christian endeavor is that which seeks to lead men to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
It is faith that distinguishes between Christianity and mere good citizenship. If force could make a man a good citizen, through some process of civil procedure, he would still be as far as ever from being a Christian. It is proper and necessary that all should be done that can be to promote good citizenship; that civil force should be made the conservator of civil or natural rights, and that public sentiment should be guided in those channels which lead to peace and prosperity in civil affairs. But it must be evident to the candid mind that effort in this line, operating as it does through purely secular means, cannot properly be termed “Christian.” If it can be, then the atheist can be a Christian endeavorer without changing his belief, as truly as can those who profess Christianity.
As Christians we cannot come to any man with force. That very individual to whom it is most necessary to apply force in the interests of the public peace and safety, is likely to be the one most in need of that divine power which restrains from wrong-doing without force. When the Christian comes to him, it must be with the gospel, the same as to all others.
The fact that there are many people in the world who must be forcibly restrained to prevent them from taking the lives or property of others, does not in the least affect the nature of Christian endeavor. Human nature is evil at its best, and the “best men” of the world, equally with the worst, must experience Christianity through simple faith in the word of God. So to whomsoever Christian endeavor may be directed,—and it must be directed to every creature in the world if the Saviour’s commission is fulfilled—it cannot operate through any human force. As soon as it makes use of force, it ceases to be Christian. Force in religion does not draw men to Christ, but only drives them away. If some are far away from him now, let them not220be driven further in the name of Christian endeavor.
Let it be remembered that the Christian is necessarily a good citizen; but a good citizen may not be a Christian at all. The production of good citizens out of bad ones is a necessary result of the work of the gospel in this world; but as the gospel works only through faith, which is a voluntary exercise, its aim is something entirely different from the preservation of public peace and order. Civil force, and that alone, is adapted to this end, proceeding without any reference to individual belief or volition. Thus the spheres of religion and of the State are entirely distinct. For the latter to enter, with its civil force, the domain of the former, is to attempt to drive men across the impossible gulf between the sinner and God, which is bridged only by Jesus Christ, and can be crossed only by faith in him.
Political methods—the machinery of civil government—must operate through force. Forced action is not of faith; and “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Hence civil power operating in the sphere of religion can only manufacture sin.
APPEALING FROM THE SUPREME COURT.
By S.
The “Washington Ministers’ Union (colored) has issued a protest respecting the recent United States Supreme Court decision upholding the Louisiana separate car system for colored persons. The ministers say:—
We feel it a duty to protest against both the Louisiana statute and the sanction of it by the Supreme Court; (1) as an injustice; (2) as a violation of personal rights; (3) as a thrust at the legal equality guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Fifteenth Amendment.
The union appeals from the decision of the Supreme Court to the bar of God, and pays a compliment to Justice Harlan, who alone dissented from the view of the court. It is well to have the truth brought before the American people that even the Supreme Court of the nation is not the final tribunal to which appeal may be made for right and justice. The Dred Scott decision of this same court was appealed to the people; and had this appeal failed, there would still have been left the appeal to that Court which never errs in its rulings,—the tribunal where God is Judge.
No question is settled until it is settled rightly. To that court our forefathers appealed when they declared independence from Great Britain. To that court the martyrs have appealed from the condemnation which has sent them forth from earthly tribunals to their death. And when all questions shall have been adjudicated in strict conformity with truth and right, by Him who is “Judge of all the earth,” many decisions which have had apparently the highest human sanction will be found to be forever overruled and reversed.
S.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL.
[Present Truth, London, Eng.]
The government of ancient Israel, when it came up out of Egypt, was a theocracy, that is, a government directly ordered by God. There was no legislative department. There were even no legislators. Moses himself, their chief and leader, was not a legislator. Moses never made a law. The so-called “Laws of Moses” were received by him directly from God. Moses had no voice in making them. He had no option as to the enforcement of them. Moses was not a “law-giver,” he was a receiver of the law, and that only. God alone was the law-giver.
The seventy elders were not a legislature. They never made any laws. Moses and the seventy elders were commanded to administer and enforce only the laws which God had given them for Israel. As regards this the directions221were explicit to add nothing to them and to take nothing from them.
The history of the appointment of Moses is given with unmistakable clearness in the third chapter of Exodus. “I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt. And Moses said unto God, Behold when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, ‘The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is His name? what shall I say unto them?’ And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” Exod. 3:6, 10, 13–15.
This leaves no room to mistake by whose appointment Moses came to occupy the position which he did in reference to the Jewish people.
But later there were associated with Moses the seventy “elders.” Who were they? They were actually the elders,—the aged men,—those who by patriarchal right were of authority in their families. From among these the seventy were chosen. Remember it was not the selection which made them “elders.” They were selected from those who were ready the elder,—made so by the course of years, not by election.
But by the authority of whose word, and how, were they chosen? To learn this definitely read Numbers 11:16, 17, 25. “And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and I will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone. And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders; and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.”
Now in all this neither Moses, nor the seventy, nor the people, had any sovereignty whatever. None of them had any part in enacting the laws. They were not consulted in the least as to what laws should be enacted or how they should be enforced. The sole part they played was to promise to obey. This was just as true of Moses and the seventy as of the people at large. The legislative power centered in God alone. In the latter period of the history of Israel, when they were given kings, it was not the people who chose their king. God himself selected, crowned, and deposed the men who ruled over Israel.
Under the theocracy, however, the management of civil and religious affairs was kept entirely separate. God chose the priesthood himself, and cut them off entirely from any authority or influence or participation in the affairs of civil government. So, now, if those who would imitate a theocracy in these days would strive to be at all true to their copy, they should separate entirely the religious from the secular, in their governmental methods.
But the first essential would be for all who rule in the name of God to be appointed directly by him, and not by their own ambition, or by birth, or by the voice of the people. Then it is also just as essential that they should not be lordly men of haughtiness and might, but meek, and humble, and obedient servants of their Lord and his people. Such was the government of Israel as anciently established. Where is the possibility for such another on the earth? There is no such possibility, and there will not be until Revelation is fulfilled and “all things are made new.” Then Christ himself will reign and our daily prayer be answered, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
CIVIL VS. RELIGIOUS PROHIBITION.
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL believes in prohibition as the proper method of dealing with the traffic in intoxicating drinks. But it believes in prohibition as a civil and not a religious act. It would restrain the liquor traffic as a foe of human rights, on the same principle that it would restrain the violence which naturally grows out of intemperance. It does not believe in licensing dogs to bite or thieves to steal. And it would prohibit these on all days of the week for the same reason that it would prohibit them on any one day. Dealing with the evil on a civil basis, no other course could be taken. It is only on the religious basis that a compromise is being effected which allows the liquor traffic almost full liberty during six sevenths of the week.
Prohibition upon merely one day of the week, that day being the “Christian sabbath,” is a religious act, and must be justified, if at all, on religious grounds. But the facts which call for prohibition—the violence, misery, and ruin produced by alcoholic drinks—are not religious facts, but secular facts. The demand for prohibition arises from a secular source. The reasons which justify it are civil reasons. To shift the question to the ground of religion is unreasonable, unjust, and calculated only to confuse the issue in the minds of the people.
As well might we compromise with any other crime on the basis of Sunday prohibition, as with that of inciting men to commit violence by means of intoxicating drink.
SPREADING BLUE LAWS.
By S.
The “blue law” tyranny has invaded the town of Westfield, N. J. A “Sunday Observance League” has been formed in the place, composed of members of the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches. In anticipation of the transaction of business on Sunday, July 5, by liverymen, barbers, and sellers of fruit and confectionery, soda-water, cigars, etc., the league sent to all the business men of the place the following notice:—
Dear Sir: It has been a matter of public comment for some time past that the laws prohibiting the sale of all classes of merchandise on Sunday have been flagrantly violated by the storekeepers of Westfield.
No doubt in most instances this is due to thoughtlessness, and not with vicious intent. The Sunday Observance League of this town has been formed with a view to requiring a compliance with the laws, and this letter is written to request that you take the necessary steps to carry out the provisions of the laws—that is, that you cease selling or delivering any commodities on Sunday, as the law prohibits the sale or delivery of any merchandise, or article of ware, on that day.
We wish it, however, to be understood that, in cases where this violation is continued, this society is prepared to prosecute the offenders by process of law.
Yours truly,
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE LEAGUE OF WESTFIELD, N. J.
ROBERT JOHNSTON, Secretary.
On being interviewed, a number of those who were served with the notice and had failed to comply with the same, said: “What are we going to do if they arrest us? Well, we’re going to fight. We’ll test the law, and, if it’s valid, we’ll make the Jersey Central stop running trains through here on Sunday, and we’ll close up everything, undertaker shops and all, and we’ll see how that goes. If they mean business, we do.”
This of course is but a sample of what is being done in very many cities and towns all over the land. It affords a cheap way of posing as a moral person, and is taken advantage of by many who feel that some bolster to their moral standing in the public eye would not come amiss. It is this sort of general fight which is stirred up everywhere by the Sunday-law leagues, under the mistaken impression that they are doing gospel work. The gospel of the lowly Nazarene does not seize men by the throat, but it draws and wins them by the power of love.