p. 39 | The American Sentinel, Vol. 2, No. 5. (5/1887)

Earlier text: Is Christ King of the Nations?

Personal Liberty.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

The editor of the Christian Union, Dr. Lyman Abbott, is writing in his paper a series of “Letters to Workingmen,” in which he is discussing the labor problem. In the issue of March 10, he considers the principle of strikes and boycotts, and among other illustrations he gives the following:—

“My friend Michael S. owns a horse and cart. He goes out to work with his horse and cart, and for a day’s work receives $3.50. He is a capital workman, and is always in great demand. . . . His horse and his cart are his own. I have no right to tell him where or how he can use them. If he should choose now to get a Pole to help him load his cart, and I should not like Poles, and should say to him, ‘Mr. S. you must not have a Pole to help you; you must have an American or an Irishman,’ I should expect the same answer from him, ‘Mind your own business. This is my horse and cart,’ he would say, ‘and I am one free man, and this Pole is another free man, and if he chooses to help me, and I choose to have him help me, it is none of your business.’ And it would clearly be none of my business. And it would not dignify or materially improve my impertinence, if I should go round our village and stir up the people to demand of Mr. S. that he only use his horse and cart so many hours a day, or get only Irishmen or Americans as helpers. I might perhaps succeed in making life so uncomfortable for Mr. S. that he would yield. But if he did, it is palpably clear that he would yield to an impertinence and an injustice.”

“There is also in our village a steam saw-mill. The men who own it have built it up by hard work, thrift, and economy. They have acquired it just as Michael S. has acquired his horse and cart, by honest industry. It is theirs, honestly theirs. Suppose I should undertake to tell them how many hours they may work their mill, and whether they may employ a Pole in it; this would be no less an impertinence. I have a little garden, and I sometimes work in it with garden tools which I have bought with my own money. It is nobody’s business but my own when or how I work, or what I do with my tools. And it is nobody’s business but their own when or how my friend Michael S. works with his horse and cart, or my friends, the owners of the steam-mill, work with their steam-mill, or whom they get to help them.”

This is sound doctrine, and nobody can gainsay it. That every man is of right master of his own actions, so long as he does no injury to his fellow-men, is self-evident. This is in harmony with our famous declaration of human rights: “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.” And this was but the enunciation of the Golden Rule, the divine law which says: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” That means that in every transaction with a fellow-man you should “put yourself in his place.” I love liberty, and do not like to be dictated to arbitrarily; therefore I must allow others the same freedom by not presuming to interfere in their affairs.

If I have hired myself to another man, I have the liberty to leave his employ if I do not like the work or the wages. But here is B., who is satisfied with both the work and the wages. Now if I say to him, “I am dissatisfied, and am going to leave, and therefore you must leave too,” all right-minded people can see that it would be insufferable impertinence on my part, which B., if he has the spirit of a man, will resent or ignore. If I bring influences to bear which he cannot resist, and force him to leave, I make him my slave. In so doing I violate the fundamental principles of all morality; for I certainly do to him what I would not like to have him do to me, thus showing that I do not love my neighbor as myself; and “he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?”

THE RIGHT TO REST.

Dr. Abbott says: “I have a little garden, and I sometimes work in it with garden tools which I have bought with my own money. It is nobody’s business but my own how or when I work, or what I do with my own tools.” Now suppose we make a little broader application of the principles above laid down. Dr. Abbott’s neighbor across the street has a garden also, in which he works when occasion demands. Some fine summer morning while Dr. A. is working in his garden, neighbor C. comes over, and says: “Dr. Abbott, you must not work in your garden to-day.” “Why not?” “Because I am going to take a holiday to-day,” says C. “Very well,” says the Doctor, “go ahead, and have your holiday; I have no objection; but I don’t feel as though I could afford a holiday to-day, for I took one yesterday; therefore I shall continue work.” Everybody will say that Dr. A. does just right, and most people will say that if neighbor C. should insist on his laying off for the day, the Doctor would be justified in politely signifying to him that he better mind his own business.

The case would be none the less absurd if Mr. C. should come over to Dr. A.’s garden, and say: “Doctor, I want you to stop work to-day, for I have worked very hard for several days past, and I feel as though it would be an injury to my physical system if I should work to-day. It is a law of nature that man should have regular periods of rest, and I am going to take mine to-day, and so you must rest too.” Dr. A. would say: “I rested all day yesterday, and feel perfectly refreshed. My system is in good condition, and does not at present require rest; if you need rest, I would certainly advise you to take it at once; my corn needs attention, and it would be wrong for me to neglect it, when I can attend to it as well as not; but I will not lay a straw in the way of your resting; go right home and rest.”

Will not everybody say that C.’s request is very unreasonable, and that if he should insist upon it, and should force Dr. A. to leave his quiet work in his garden, he would be acting most unjustly? None could say otherwise; for Dr. A.’s working does not in the least interfere with Mr. C.’s resting.

The reader sees by this time that we are not discussing the labor problem, in the generally accepted sense of that term; and yet the principles which apply in the matter of strikes and boycotts, apply equally to the matter of Sunday rest or labor. If I choose to rest on Sunday I have that privilege, but I have no right to say that somebody else must rest just because I do. If my neighbors choose to work in their shops or gardens on Sunday, they do not hinder me from resting. In like manner if I choose to rest on Saturday, I have no right to request or demand that others shall likewise rest, unless they feel free to do so.

We know that the plea is constantly being made that observers of Sunday, must be protected in their right to rest. We readily agree. No man on earth, nor any company of men, has the right to say that another man shall work on Sunday. To do so would be a gross interference with his rights. But, by the same rule, no man, or set of men, has the right to say that another man shall not work on Sunday. A man may say, “You shall not work for me on Sunday;” a corporation may say, “You shall not work for us on Sunday;” and they have the right to say so to any man any day in the week. But when they undertake to say, “You shall not work for yourself, or for some other man if he wishes to hire you,” they are going beyond their rights.

THE RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE.

But the case is put as a matter of conscience. Thus, A. says, “My conscience requires me to rest on Sunday, and it offends and grieves me sorely to see others working on that day. To be sure, it doesn’t hinder me from resting, but it disturbs my peace of mind.” Well, suppose we interview your neighbor who thus disturbs your peace of mind. B. says, “My conscience and my understanding of the Bible demand that I should rest on Saturday, and consequently labor on Sunday. It grieves me sorely to see neighbor A. working as I am going to church, and my worship is often disturbed by the rattling of his heavy wagon, or the sound of his hammer.” Now is there any principle which can be invoked to uphold the State in compelling B. to rest on Sunday, so that A.’s feelings shall not be ruffled, while it allows A. to go his way on Saturday, regardless of the feelings of B.? We have never heard of any, except that ninety-nine one-hundredths of the people want to rest on Sunday, while only about one one-hundredth of the people care to rest on Saturday. But this is the principle that the wishes of the majority must be gratified regardless of the wishes, or even the rights, of the minority. It is the principle of tyrants,—the principle that might makes right. It is the principle which protects the lion from the lamb; which grants concessions to the rich, who can take care of themselves, at the expense of the poor, who have not power to protest. It is the principle which directly contravenes the divine command: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” “This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.”

But it is urged that Sunday is the day divinely appointed for rest, and that, therefore, the State in enforcing its observance, is compelling men simply to do what is right, and what they ought to do voluntarily. Well, suppose that men really ought to keep Sunday; here are some honest, conscientious men who cannot see it so; they read their Bibles carefully, and can see no command for Sunday observance, but think that they are plainly commanded to observe the seventh day. They cannot rest on Sunday without working on Saturday, and their conscience will not allow them to do that. If now the State steps in and says that they must, because it is right, the State becomes conscience for them, and Paul’s declaration, “To his own Master he standeth or falleth,” is ignored. And if the man submits in this, he becomes the worst kind of a slave. One may by force of circumstances yield his bodily strength to another, and still be a free man, but he who submits his conscience to another, parts with his manhood. We think no one who has a mind capable of deciding a case upon its merits, can deny the simple principles which are here laid down. They are in harmony with the law of God and our own charter of liberty; and therefore they who seek to compel even a single individual to violate his conscience, proclaim themselves the enemies both of God and of man. E. J. W.

For What Are the Powers That Be, Ordained?

By Alonzo T. Jones

HAVING shown, in another place, that the powers that be are ordained of God, the question comes up for consideration, For what are these powers ordained? The National Reform theory claims that because the powers “that ought to be” are ordained to God, it follows that those powers would be ordained to minister in all things pertaining to God and man. But such an interpretation is just as far from the truth as is the average National Reform interpretation.

The powers that be are ordained of God in things that pertain to civil government and in that alone. The magistrate is “the minister of God” solely in things civil and in nothing else. And men are to be subject to the higher powers in things civil, and in nothing else, for those powers have to do with things civil and nothing else. It is admitted by the National Reformers that Romans 13:1–10 treats “of civil government and of civil duties.” Now the definition of civil according to Webster is, “Pertaining to a city or State, or to a citizen in his relations to his fellow-citizens or to the State.” Civil government, therefore, pertaining solely to the citizen in his relations to his fellow-citizens or to the State, in the very nature of the case can have nothing at all to do with the relations of the citizens to God. And as the National Reform definition of religion is, “Man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God,” this is to say that civil government can, of right, have nothing whatever to do with religion. That these propositions are correct, we have decisive proof in two notable instances.

We have shown that the power of Nebuchadnezzar was ordained of God. Now this same Nebuchadnezzar took upon himself to play the role of the grand National Reformer of his day. It was not enough that he should be ordained of God to rule in the relations of men with their fellow-men or with the State, but he must take it upon himself to rule in men’s relations to God. It was not enough that his power was ordained of God in things civil, but he must exercise his power in things religious. It was not enough that he should rule men’s bodies, he must rule their consciences as well. He would compel men to worship the god that he should choose and as he chose. Accordingly he made a colossal image, and set it up in the plain of Dura, not far from Babylon, and then sent and gathered together “the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers” to the dedication of the image. Then when all were assembled, he published an edict by a loud-voiced herald, that at a signal sounded by all the musical instruments together, everybody should fall down and worship the great golden image, and this under penalty, upon whosoever refused, of being pitched into a fiery furnace.

But in the crowd there happened to be three “political atheists”—Jews they were then called—who chose to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and so refused to obey the law. They were called up and asked about it, but they persisted in their opposition to National Reform, and said plainly, “Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” But according to President Seeley’s National Reform principle, the State, i. e., Nebuchadnezzar, was both “courageous” and “wise,” and therefore did “not falter,” and into the burning fiery furnace intensely heated the “political atheists” were thrust.

NO POWER OVER CONSCIENCE.

Then King Nebuchadnezzar “rose up in haste” and cried to his counselors, “Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O King. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” Then the king called to the men to come out, and they did so, untouched by the fire. “Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.” Thus God not only brought Nebuchadnezzar to the kingdom and ordained him a power over all the kingdoms and nations round about, but he also demonstrated to him that although his power was ordained of God, that power was not ordained in things pertaining to God. The Lord showed him that although God had given him power over all kingdoms and nations, he had not given him power over the worship, the faith, or the conscience of a single individual in any nation.

The Lord not only showed this to Nebuchadnezzar, but by having it recorded in his word he has shown it to all people to whom that word shall come. And it is one of the most surprising things, that in the end of this nineteenth century, in this land of Bibles and consequent light and liberty, there should arise a set of men who will go about to put in practice in this Government the principles of the heathen Nebuchadnezzar. There might be allowed some excuse for a poor, blind heathen doing such a thing twenty-four hundred and sixty-seven years ago; but what shadow of excuse can there possibly be for men who will do it now, with the Bible in their hands, and in the face of a miracle of God wrought expressly to show the iniquity of it?

Nor is this case of Nebuchadnezzar the only instance in which God has shown to men that although the powers that be are ordained of God, they are ordained only in things pertaining to men, in their relations to their fellow-men as citizens, and to the State. Under Darius, the Mede, whose power was ordained of God, some envious officials grew so jealous of the prime minister, that they determined to get him out of the way. But in all their searching and spying they utterly failed to find any fault at all in him. “Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.” But there was no State law by which they could interfere with his rights of conscience or his liberty of worship. So like the true National Reformers they were, they set to work to “inaugurate a revolution.” They pretended to be greatly interested in the honor of the king, and the good of the State. Darius, suspecting nothing, but supposing their representations were made in good faith, fell into the trap, and enacted the law which they had framed. At their solicitation he established a statute, and signed a decree that nobody should ask any petition of either God or man, save of the king, for thirty days; and that, too, under the dreadful penalty of being made food for lions.

But Daniel knew that the power of Medo-Persia was not ordained to any such work as that; and when he “knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and, his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.” Then those men found Daniel praying, as was a foregone certainty, and rushed to the king with the report. Suddenly the eyes of Darius were opened; he saw that he had been trapped, and took shame to himself that he had allowed himself to be so terribly hoodwinked, and immediately began to try to deliver Daniel out of their persecuting hands. “And he labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him,” but there was no remedy; the thing was law and the law had to take its course, for it could not be changed, and consequently to the lions Daniel had to go. But so far as Daniel was concerned the result in this instance was the same as the other, for when Darius hastened to the den in the morning and called out to him, Daniel answered him cheerfully and said, “My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me; forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.”

DON’T TRUST THEM.

Now the same evil principle illustrated in this case, is being practised in the United States to-day. And it is being worked in the same way precisely. Preachers professing great interest in the workingman, or great regard for the safety of the State, will go to the Legislature with a petition, and get some one of their kind to introduce a bill, for the enactment of a rigorous Sunday law, or for the repeal of a protective clause in an already rigorous law, and all this professedly as a “police regulation” or “in the interests of prohibition,” or anything else but what it really is. And by pious pretensions, honeyed phrases, and fair speeches, they conceal their real purpose, succeed in hoodwinking the Legislature, and secure the passage of their innocent appearing bill. But as soon as their will has been made law, their interest in the “workingman,” or in “prohibition,” etc., suddenly

ceases, and the whole tide of inquisition, prosecution, and persecution, is turned against a few innocent people who choose to worship God on Saturday instead of on Sunday. This thing was actually accomplished two years ago in Arkansas, and in all the working of the Sunday law so secured, we have not been able to learn of a single case in which the person prosecuted was not a Seventh-day Adventist or a Seventh-day Baptist. By the efforts of the lawyers of that State, and the earnest leadership of Senator Crockett, the Legislature has remedied the iniquitous statute.

Nor is this evil spirit confined to Arkansas. In California the present year, the same scheme was tried on the Legislature, but it failed. The same thing was tried in the Legislature of Minnesota, about the same time as in California, and there too, at almost the last moment, the real intent of the thing was discovered, and the scheme frustrated. In Texas, also, and other States, it has been attempted, and all within the present year, but so far we believe all have failed, because the evil was discovered before it was too late. And what those men did in the law of Medo-Persia, and what these parties have done, and have tried to do in the laws of these States, that is precisely what the National Reform party is aiming to do in the Constitution and laws of the Nation.

If the Legislatures of the States, or the national Legislature, will guard against persecution, let them beware of all preachers, people, parties, or associations, who try to secure the enactment of Sunday laws, or the repeal of exemption clauses in Sunday laws already enacted.

Nor is it only in the cases of Darius and Nebuchadnezzar that God has shown that civil government is not ordained of God in things pertaining to God, but only in things pertaining to the citizen in his relations to his fellow-citizens and to the State. Christ laid down the principle that severs forever the connection between the State and religion, and which shows conclusively that the powers that be are ordained of God only in things civil, and have nothing whatever to do with any man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God. Certain of the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked:—

“Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?” But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

With that read the following from Paul’s words in Romans 13:1–10, and compare the italicized words:— “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. . . . For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

CIVIL GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FIRST TABLE OF THE LAW.

Now what man can read these two passages of Scripture together, and honestly or truthfully say other than that Paul had in view the word of Christ, “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s”? and that Romans 13:1–10 is an inspired comment upon the words of Christ, showing not only that the powers that be are ordained of God, but also showing in what they are ordained of God?—No one, assuredly. This is made even clearer still by the fact that Paul in referring to the duties that devolve upon men under the powers that be, makes not a single reference to any of the first four commandments; but says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” thus referring solely to the second table of the law, and showing conclusively that the powers that be are ordained of God in things civil,—in things pertaining to the relations of man with his fellow-man,—and in those things alone.

As in this divine record of the duties that men owe to the powers that be, there is no reference whatever to the first table of the law, it therefore follows that the powers that be, although ordained of God, have nothing whatever to do with the first table of the law of God. Again, as the ten commandments contain the whole duty of man, and as in God’s own enumeration of the duty that men owe to the powers that be there is no mention of any of the things contained in the first table of the law, it follows that none of the duties contained in the first table of the law of God, do men owe to the powers that be. That is to say again that the powers that be, although ordained of God, are not ordained of God in anything pertaining to a single duty enjoined in any one of the first four of the ten commandments. These are duties that men owe to God, and with them the powers that be can of right have nothing to do, because Christ has commanded to render unto God—not to Cæsar, nor by Cæsar—that which is God’s.

Therefore the proof is conclusive, and the truth absolute, that the National Reform ideas of civil government are utterly at fault, and that their interpretations of Scripture on the subject of civil government are only perversions of Scripture. A. T. J.

BIBLE SANCTIFICATION:

A CONTRAST OF

TRUE AND FALSE THEORIES.

By Mrs. E. G. White.

This is a pamphlet of only 84 pages, but its value is not to be judged by its size. It is just what its title indicates: a faithful presentation of Bible truth on this important subject, and an exposure of the false theories prevailing in regard to it. Every believer in Bible truth should read it. Buy it, read it, and lend it to your neighbor. Price, 10 cents.

Address, PACIFIC PRESS, Oakland, Cal.

CHRIST IN THE GOSPELS,

By James P. Cadman

—OR—

The Life of our Lord in the Words of the Evangelists,

By JAMES P. CADMAN, A. M.

Is,—as its Name Indicates,—a Compilation in which the four Narratives of THE LIFE OF CHRIST ARE WOVEN INTO ONE CONNECTED STORY, MAKING A COMPLETE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE SCRIPTURES.

The text is that of the Revised Version, and while every word in the four Gospels appears, the work is so arranged that the reader can tell at a glance the words used in each Gospel. Those who have tried to gather all the facts concerning some miracle, or other event, and at the same time properly locate and credit the various parts of the narrative, will appreciate this book, which is the very best of its kind and gives evidence of an immense amount of careful and painstaking labor.

The book is fully indexed so that any text or subject can be readily found; and the maps, notes, and diagrams which it contains are alone well worth the price of the volume. The following partial (less than half) TABLE OF CONTENTS will give an idea of the scope of the work:—

Index to chapter and verses; Life of Our Lord (333 pages); Index of persons, places, and subjects, with dictionary of proper names; Explanation of maps and diagrams; Map of the pathway of Jesus; Diagrams illustrating the principal events of crucifixion week.

This work is invaluable, and all who love the Bible should have a copy. It contains 394 pages, is well printed on good paper, and is neatly and substantially bound in cloth.

Price, post-paid, - - - - - - - - - - $1.50

With gilt edges, - - - - - - - - - - - 2.00

Address, PACIFIC PRESS, Oakland, Cal.

THE ATONEMENT.

By J. H. Waggoner

AN EXAMINATION OF

A REMEDIAL SYSTEM, IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE AND OF REVELATION.

By Eld. J. H. Waggoner.

THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND GREATLY ENLARGED.

This work is a critical and exhaustive treatise on the plan of salvation as revealed in the Scriptures, showing its harmony with the principles of justice and mercy, its consistency with reason, and its final results as affecting the destiny of the human race. 368 pp.; cloth, $1.00.

Address, PACIFIC PRESS, Oakland, Cal.

MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS.

ASSORTED PACKAGE NO. 6. PRICE, 25c.

The Plan of Redemption—The Sufferings of Christ—The Sanctuary of the Bible—Scripture References—The Spirit of Prophecy—Spiritualism a Satanic Delusion—Samuel and the Witch of Endor—The End of the Wicked—The Two Thrones.

Address, PACIFIC PRESS, Oakland, Cal.

THE SABBATH QUESTION.

ASSORTED PACKAGE No. 1, PRICE, 10c.

Which Day Do You Keep, and Why—Who Changed the Sabbath—The Sabbath in the New Testament—Elijah on the Sabbath—God's Memorial—Sunday Not the Sabbath—Why Not Found Out Before—One Hundred Bible Facts about the Sabbath.

ASSORTED PACKAGE No. 2, PRICE, 25c.

This package contains all the tracts in package No. 1, and the following in addition:—

Seven Reasons for Sunday-keeping Examined—The Ten Commandments Not Abolished—The Seventh Part of Time—The Definite Seventh Day—Perfection of the Ten Commandments—Address to the Baptists—The Sunday Law.

OTHER WORKS ON THE SABBATH.

The Truth Found.—A comprehensive exposition of the nature and obligation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. 64 pp............................10c

Sunday Seventh-day Examined.—A critical examination of the claim that Sunday is the true seventh day of the fourth commandment. 88 pp............................10c

Brown's Review of Gillfillan on the Sabbath Question. 64 pp............................10c

Appeal to the Baptists.—An address from the Seventh-day Baptists to their first-day Baptist brethren, urging a restoration of the Bible Sabbath from the standpoint of Baptist principles of argument and interpretation. 48 pp. 10c

Vindication of the True Sabbath.—By a former missionary of the Presbyterian Church (Morton), 68 pp............................10c

Morality of the Sabbath.—Showing that the Sabbath commandment, being found in the midst of the nine acknowledged moral precepts, is, like the others, moral in its nature. 96 pp............................15c

Testimony of the Fathers of the first three centuries concerning the Sabbath and first-day. A candid examination of both sides of the question. 112 pp............................15c

Address, PACIFIC PRESS, Oakland, Cal.

A Henry George Club

THE librarian of a “Henry George Club” in Cincinnati, Ohio, writes us that we may be sure that anyone who writes under that heading is “opposed to the union of Church and State—particularly under our present social conditions.” He thinks, however, that we are wasting our time fighting an “improbable bugaboo,” while a far deeper social wrong, viz., land monopoly, exists, and that, “under a proper social system, the evil that you so much dread would amount to nothing, even if it did take place.”

Our friend may be very sure that it will take place, when so many people are ignorant as to the progress it has already made, and are indifferent as to whether it does or not. And when it does come, he will find that a “proper social system” will be just the thing that cannot possibly exist in connection with it. A proper social system would keep National Reform pretensions from becoming actual facts.

National Reform Convention

By Editor

THE National Convention for National Reform meets in Chicago, May 11, 12. The SENTINEL will be represented there and our June issue will have a full report of the most important of the proceedings.

The Divine Politician

NATIONAL REFORM has bestowed upon the Saviour a new title. He is now “The divine politician.” Babylon the great, the mother of harlots, is said to be “full of names of blasphemy,” and this, her youngest daughter, is fast following in the steps of the mother.

The National Reformers’ Moral Nation

The National Reformers are determined to have the nation a moral person, even though they have to create it such. In the Cincinnati Convention, 1872, Prof. J. R. W. Sloane said of a nation, that its “true figure is that of a colossal man,” having “consciousness,” “will,” “purpose,” and “a soul.” “District Secretary” Rev. J. M. Foster, carries forward the conception after this sort:—

“The executive department of Government is the head, the judicial the arms, and the legislative the legs, through which this sovereign body exercises its will.”—Christian Statesman, July 24, 1884.

We are waiting to see who of them will complete the absurd idea. There is here an excellent opportunity for the Rev. M. A. Gault to display the creative power of his sublime genius.

Christianity in Political Institutions

Said Rev. D. McAllister, in the New York Convention, 1873:— “Had Mohammedans settled this country, they would have incorporated Mohammedanism into its civil and political institutions. Had pagans come here at first, and continued in the ascendency, the political body formed and developed would have taken on distinctively pagan features.”

He then went on to argue that as the country was settled by Christians the body politic should take on distinctively Christian features, and incorporate Christianity into its political institutions. That is to say that Christians should act upon the same principles that Mohammedans and Pagans do; and that Christianity should be no more liberal and enlightened than is Mohammedanism or Paganism; and shows the model upon which a National Reform Government would be formed, and the principles by which it would be actuated.

National Reform and Church-State Union

In the Pittsburg Convention, 1874, National Reform President Brunot said:—

“Where States undertake by statute laws to compel men's consciences in their relation to God, there is a condition of affairs indicated as a ‘union of Church and State.’”

It would be impossible to compel men's consciences in any other relation than their relation to God, because conscience has to do alone with man's relation to God. Yet to have the State by statute laws to compel men's consciences is precisely what the National Reformers propose to do. PROOF: Rev. David Gregg in the Christian Statesman, June 5, 1884, said of “civil government:”—

“It has the right to be, and the right to command the consciences of men.”

Therefore, by their own premises, the conclusion inevitably follows that under a National Reform Government there would be “a condition of affairs indicated as a union of Church and State,” and they can't disprove it.

National Reformers and Minority Rights

IN the last Statesman, Mr. Gault, of the National Reform Association, reports from Gridley, Illinois, where he lectured to a fair audience in the M. E. church. He says: “An Advent brother was much aroused, and wanted the church to answer my arguments for the change of the Sabbath, but the pastor refused. I assured the brother that we never designed to prohibit him from keeping his Sabbath, and only asked that he might not disturb us on ours.”

For cool, calculating selfishness under the guise of a desire for justice, that takes the lead. The National Reform Association, through Mr. Gault, says to the observer of the seventh day: “We do not intend to force you to labor on your Sabbath, but in the interest of justice and good order, we intend to entreat you with the strong arm of the law, not to disturb us on ours.” But do they propose to reciprocate, and not disturb the seventh-day keeper on “his” Sabbath? Oh, no! Why not? Because we are National Reformers; we are the people; we are in the majority, and no man has any business to differ with us. National Reform laws are intended only to protect the strong majority from the annoyance of the weak minority; according to National Reformers, those who are few and weak cannot have any rights. It is by such logic as this that they evade the charge of infringing upon the rights of people.

A Christian Association Built on Selfishness

Is it possible that the thinking people of this land can be deceived so as to think that a party which has selfishness as its foundation and superstructure, is a Christian Association?

The Constitution and State Constitutions

AND now we have the climax to the National Reform argument for a change in the Constitution of the United States; Mr. John Alexander, of Philadelphia, sometime president of the National Reform Association, has been unburdening himself to a correspondent of the Universalist, to whom he affirms that our Constitution “is not in harmony with the State constitutions, which do confess God and his law”! That is equivalent to charging the United States Constitution with being unconstitutional, because some State constitutions have not been framed in harmony with it. Which is the larger, the State of Pennsylvania, or the United States? His argument is on a par with the objection to the Bible, because it does not agree with the latest developments of modern science. But Mr. Alexander’s pathetic plaint is valuable to this extent: It is an admission from National Reformers themselves, that those States which frame laws in favor of religious tenets, and which persecute conscientious dissenters from those tenets, are acting unconstitutionally.

Do Not Underestimate National Reform

No DOUBT there are many who think that the SENTINEL has set out on a fool’s errand, and that the National Reform party is no more formidable an opponent than were those which Don Quixote so valiantly assailed. The editor of one of the leading journals in a capital city in an Eastern State, recently wrote upon this subject and said that all the religious journals are opposed to it. Those who really love liberty cannot too soon disabuse their minds of such ideas. A movement which numbers among its officers and supporters some of the leading clergymen, college presidents, and jurists in the land, which has the support of the National W. C. T. U., and some of whose principles the Knights of Labor and even Socialists are beginning to endorse, is not a “bugaboo.” Nothing is to be gained, but everything to be lost, by underrating the strength of an opponent.

Prayers for Kings and Those in Authority

I EXHORT that prayers be made for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.—Paul.