February 20, 1896

“The Eastern Question” American Sentinel 11, 8, pp. 57, 58.

ATJ

AFFAIRS in the vicinity of Constantinople and in Asia Minor are more pacific than they were a few weeks ago; but the Eastern Question is not settled, nor will it be until the Turk shall have been driven from Europe.AMS February 20, 1896, page 57.1

The real problem that demands solution is not, What shall be the fate of the Turkish Empire? That has long been a foregone conclusion. The Easter Question is, in brief, To whose lot shall Constantinople and the control of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorous fall when the Turk is driven from Europe? Christendom long since decreed the utter destruction of Ottoman supremacy, and could the crowned heads of Europe agree among themselves as to the disposition of the territory of the Sultan, the Turkish Empire could not last a month. Ottoman autonomy exists to-day solely because of the mutual jealousies of the great powers of Europe.AMS February 20, 1896, page 57.2

In 1840, the Sultan, Abd-ul-Mejid, who had just come to the throne, finding himself unable to cope successfully with Mehemet Ali, the rebellious Pasha of Egypt, virtually surrendered his sovereignty into the hands of the powers of Europe by accepting their ultimatum in the Egyptian embroglio and transmitting it to the Pasha, who yielded, not to the Sultan but to the powers; since which time Turkey has existed merely by the sufferance of the other nations of Europe, and is well described by the sobriquet, “the Sick Man of the East.” (See ^{1Abd-ul-Mejid came to the throne by the death of his father, Mahmud II., at the very moment when Mehemut Ali seemed about to make himself master of the Turkish Empire. Says the “Encyclopdia Britannica,” Art., “Turkey“: “The young Sultan entered upon his reign unusually as an independent sovereign, but really under the protection of the European powers.” And again, in the same connection, but of a little later period, it is said of the Czar: “The suppression of the National Hungarian Government by Russia in 1849 had heightened in the Emperor Nicholas the sense of his own power. He now looked forward to the speedy extinction of Turkey and in 1858 proposed to the British ambassador, Sir H. Seymour, a plan for the division of ‘the Sick Man’s’ inheritance as soon as he should expire.”} on second page.)AMS February 20, 1896, page 57.3

Every great power in Europe looks with covetous eyes upon the city of Constantinople. England, Austria, and Russia, especially have each cherished the hope of one day adding to their possessions this busy mart of the Orient. But hitherto ambition has been restrained by the certain knowledge that the occupation of “Key of the East” by any one of the powers would be the signal for a general European war too awful in its probable consequences to be risked even for such a prize.AMS February 20, 1896, page 57.4

Nevertheless the conquest of Turkey, the possession of Constantinople, and the command of the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black Seas have long been the avowed purpose of Russia. Peter the Great cherished this ambition two centuries ago and left it as a sacred legacy to his successors. In his will, the great Czar said:—AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.1

Take every possible means of gaining constantinope and the Indies (for he who rules there will be the true sovereign of the world); excite war continually in Turkey and Persia; establish fortresses in the Black Sea; get control of the sea by degrees, and also of the Baltic, which is a double point, necessary to the realization of our project; accelerate as much as possible the decay of Persia; penetrate to the Persian Gulf; reëstablish, if possible, by the way of Syria, the ancient commerce of the Levant; advance to the Indies, which are the great depth of the world. Once there, we can do without the gold of England.AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.2

How undeviatingly this policy has been followed by the Czars will appear from an extract from Russian history:—AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.3

In 1696, Peter the Great wrested the Sea of Azov from the Turks, and kept it. Next, Catharine the Great won the Crimea. In 1812, by the peace of Bucharest, Alexander I. obtained Moldavia, and the prettily named province of Bessarabia, with its apples, peaches, and cherries. Then came the great Nicholas, who won the right of the free navigation of the Black Sea, the Dardanelles, and the Danube.AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.4

Great as were these advances Russian ambition was not satisfied; and in 1853 the Czar attempted to establish “a protectorate over all Christians in Turkey belonging to the Greek Church. This claim not being allowed by the Port, a Russian army entered the Danubian principalities. “After ineffective negotiations war was declared by the Sultan on the 4th of October.” ^{2“Encyclopedia Britannica,” Vol. 23, p. 651.}AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.5

In this, the Crimean war, England and France allied themselves with Turkey; Russia was defeated and lost some territory previously gained; but, in 1870, when all Europe was intently watching the desperate conflict between France and Germany, the Czar announced to the powers that he would no longer be bound by the Treaty of Paris, made in 1856, which excluded his ships and arsenals from the Black Sea; and since that time the Euxine has been practically Russian territory.AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.6

But the long-cherish goal of Muscovite ambition had not been reached, and only a few years later eastern Europe was again darkened by an ominous war cloud. Russian intrigue was at work, anmd in 1875 Bosnia and Herzegovina revolted; and in a few months Bulgaria was involved in the rebellion. Servia and Montenegro also took up arms. The atrocities attending the efforts of the Turks to suppress rebellion were such as to excite the indignation of the civilized world. But the resources of European diplomacy were exhausted in fruitless attempts to gain from the Porte some real security for better government in the distracted provinces, and in April, 1877, Russia again declared war.AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.7

The neutrality of Austria had been secured by a secret agreement permitting that country to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, if Russia should extend its influence beyond the Balkans. England would doubtless have interfered [sic.] but the Bulgarian massacres had excited such horror and indignation that Britain was forced to remain neutral. Lord Beaconsfield, then Prime Minister, stipulated, however, that Egypt should not become the scene of hostilities, and that the Russians should not occupy Constantinople, except temporarily. In this way Turkey was left without an active ally, and the following February the Russian army reached the suburbs of the coveted city; but the Czar, knowing that England would not permit him to reap the full fruits of his victory, concluded a treaty of peace with Turkey, March 3, 1878, and shortly withdrew his troops from Ottoman territory.AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.8

As a result of the war, several independent and semi-independent principalities were created out of what had formerly been Turkish territory; and in these, Russian influence continued to manifest itself. They have been saved from Muscovite greed only by the influence of England and Austria, made potent by English cannon and Austrian columns.AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.9

Russia had gained the Black Sea, but could advance into Asia Minor only by aggressions in Armenia. To this end revolt was encouraged there, until a few months since open rebellion afforded pretext for Mohammedan hate to manifest itself in the massacre of those who bore the name of Christians. This doubtless was the cause of the atrocities which so horrified the world only a few weeks ago. From a human standpoint, only one thing prevented summary interference on the part of the “Christian” powers, and that was jealousy of each other. But God makes even the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder of wrath he restrains. ^{3Psalm 76:10.} Universal war would greatly retard the progress of the gospel, and so God holds in check these warlike elements until his work is accomplished in the earth. How often during the past twenty years have men said, the final catastrophe can be averted only a few months at most, then universal, devastating war must come. But heavenly messengers restrain the armies of earth. “I saw four angels,” says the inspired penman, “standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.” ^{4Revelation 7:1-3.}AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.10

Many times the speedy dismemberment of Turkey has appeared to be inevitable. But though without friends or allies Turkey has received aid either directly or indirectly in every emergency, and has thus been preserved as a nation; but nobody doubts that the time will come, when, having filled up the cup of its iniquity, the Ottoman power will be swept from the face of the earth.AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.11

To the testimony of the unmistakable trend of political events is added the declarations of the Word of God. The prophecy declares plainly that notwithstanding the fact that the Turk has been supported more or less directly in the past by other powers, he will finally be driven from Europe. “He shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain,” says the inspired Word, “yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” ^{5Daniel 11:43.}AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.12

“Between the seas in the glorious holy mountain” refers unmistakably to Jerusalem, located between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. Palestine is Turkish territory, and the Mohammedan, equally with the Christian, regards Jerusalem as holy ground. And what is more natural than that driven from Europe and fired by religious fanaticism, the Turk should make the “City of David” his capital?AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.13

But such a transfer of the Ottoman seat of government will be no means settle the Eastern Question: it will only change its form. Turkish hate and fanaticism will beget like feelings in “Christian” breasts, and Christendom will demand the expulsion of the Turk from the “Holy City.” “He shall come to his end and none shall help him.” And what then? Let the prophecy answer: “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” ^{6Daniel 12:1-4.}AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.14

The seal of the book of Daniel has been broken. Knowledge of the Scriptures, as well as of the arts and sciences, has increased wonderfully, and in the light of the divine Word the present status of the Eastern Question points unmistakably to the soon coming of the “King of kings and Lord of lords” ^{7Revelation 19:16.} to claim the promise of the Father and to fulfill his word: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” ^{8Psalm 2:} “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” ^{9Daniel 7:27.} And in these events only will be found the final settlement of the Eastern Question.AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.15

“What They Want” American Sentinel 11, 8, pp. 58, 59.

ATJ

THE “National Reform” conception of the State,—the conception upon which Sunday legislation is demanded of Congress and other law-making bodies,—is that the State is the creature of God, and therefore amenable to God’s moral law,—that law which says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” etc.AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.1

But the “National Reform” party do not purpose to abolish or change the form of this Government. They want it to be “Christian”—to be a government of God on earth, but they do not purpose to ablish the various offices which are now filled by the people’s representatives. They do not advocate a formal transfer of the government of God, by a general abdication of office in his favor. They are probably aware that the Almighty would take no notice of any such action; and moreover, it would seriously interfere with their plans if he should do so. They would have the various functions and offices of government remain as they are; at least, they have given no hint of any purpose to the contrary.AMS February 20, 1896, page 58.2

The question then arises, In this government of God on earth, who would do the governing? We are told of course that God would govern; but how would this be done? He will not descend himself, nor send angels down from heaven, to take control of affairs. No; it will still remain for men to fill the quondam positions of public trust. But how is it to be known what men are suitable for these positions? How is the divine will to be made known in this respect? Where now is the pillar of cloud, from which God communicated with his people of old? Where is the visible shrine of his glory to which men may seek, or where the Urim and the Thummim, by which his will was wont to be made known? Where are the seers and prophets by whose anointing it may be manifest what men are chosen of God? There are none, must be the confession of the religious world. And still the necessity remains of selecting such men for public office as will make this a government of God.AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.1

How then can it be done? Will the choice be left to the people themselves? That would not do, for more than half the people of the land are not even professedly Christians. Hence they could not select the proper candidates for office. But the “reform” party are not unprepared for this emergency. They have a solution of the problem, and it has been already announced. It appeared in an article by Rev. W. F. Crafts, in the Christian Statesman of July 5, 1888. It was stated in one sentence, thus:—AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.2

The preachers are the successors of the prophets.AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.3

This throws a flood of light upon the whole situation. Anciently, the prophets made known the ones whom God had appointed to office; the same will now be done by the preachers. And obviously no preachers can so fittingly assume this task as those who have so long recognized and advocated its necessity!AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.4

And thus is seen the purpose of the demand for a “Christian” government: This must be a government of God; it must therefore be a government by Christian officials; the officials must therefore be chosen by the preachers. In short, if only this is made a government of God, we [the preachers] will do the governing! And that is what we want, and are determined to have!AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.5

And what the people will then have in place of their present free government, is set forth in the article, “Clerical Civil Government,” on page 60.AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.6

“Going to the Root of the Matter” American Sentinel 11, 8, p. 59.

ATJ

REFERRING to the so-called Christian amendment, the Truth Seeker, of this city, says:—AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.1

Freethinkers go to the root of the matter by refusing to admit the existence of the being the Christians describe as God; by denying that civil government has any other source than the people who establish it, and by opposing all religious legislation as a fraud, a usurpation, and a tyranny. This ground is perfectly tenable under the Constitution and it is the only refuge from the tide of religious fanaticism and political hypocrisy that is floating the theocrats on the Washington.AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.2

This is a mistake. It is much easier to go to the root of the matter while acknowledging the being of God, and that rights have a higher source than the will of the people. “There is no power but of God,” and “the powers that be are ordained of God.” But, as we have many times show, as God has ordained these powers, so he has limited them, and in this fact is our only security.AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.3

The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, an avowed liberal, recognizes both the being of God, and that he is the author of rights, and consequently of government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” wrote Jefferson, “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” These words recognize the Creator and the divine origin of rights. If civil government had no other source than the people, then there could be no rights superior to the will of the people; and the pagan motto, “Whatever is, is right,” would be true in government as in everything else. But the Declaration of Independence distinctly affirms the divine origin of human rights and makes those rights superior to human government, because they are God-given.AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.4

Government is ordained of God to be “a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well.” He has, therefore, ordained no invasion of the rights which he himself gave, and whatever liberty freethinkers enjoy to-day is due to the recognition by their fellowmen of the fact that they, equally with other men, are by their Creator endowed with certain unalienable rights; consequently they and they only go to the root of this matter who recognize God as the Creator, and who, acknowledging his right to command them, maintain their God-given right to worship him according to the dictates of their own consciences, and who also consistently maintain that every other man has the same God-given right not to worship if he so elects.AMS February 20, 1896, page 59.5

“Clerical Civil Government” American Sentinel 11, 8, pp. 60, 61.

ATJ

A KNOWLEDGE of what this Government will become when its legislators surrender fully to the demands of the clergy, and its laws are modeled after (their ideas of) the will of God, is not dependent upon theory or logic. It is furnished us by the plain testimony of historical facts.AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.1

There is nothing new under the sun,—not even the “National Reform” theory of government. Indeed, that theory is older than the theory expressed in our national Constitution, and has been many times put upon trial. History is full of instruction upon this point; but her lessons are never sufficiently learned by the generality of mankind. This is why history—evil history—so peristently [sic.] repeats itself.AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.2

We have not to go back very far into the past to find the information sought. Nor are we obliged to turn to Roman Catholic lands. Indeed, those most active in National Reform work are the descendants of the old Scottish Covenanters, and it is the Scottish Covenanter theory of government which they are seeking to establish in this country. That theory was once well established in Scotland, and very interesting to enlightened people in this age is the record of the proceedings under it. That record may be found in “Buckle’s History of Civilization.” First, however, by way of introduction, we quote the following from the “Encyclopedia Britannica,” article, “Presbyterianism“:—AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.3

For the spiritual tyranny which they [the Covenanters] introduced the reader should refer to Mr. Buckle’s famous chapter; or, if he thinks those statements to be partial or exaggerated, to original records, such as those of the Presbyterian of St. Andrews and Cupar. The arrogance of the ministers’ pretensions and the readiness with which these pretensions were granted, the appalling conceptions of the Deity which were inculcated, and the absence of all contrary expression of opinion, the intrusions on the domain of the magistrate, the vexatious interference in every detail of family and commercial life, and the patience with which it was borne, are to an English reader alike amazing. “We acknowledge,” said they, “that according to the latitude of the Word of God (which is our theme) we are allowed to treat in an ecclesiastical way of greatest and smallest, from the king’s throne that should be established in righteousness, to the merchant’s balance that should be used in faithfulness.” The liberality of the interpretation given to this can only be judged of after minute reading.AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.4

Turning now to “Buckle’s famous chapter” (chapter V. of his “History of Civilization”), we find the following (the notes, in brackets, being from Buckle’s foot-notes in proof of his statements):—AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.5

“According to the Presbyterian polity, which reached its height in the seventeenth century, the clergyman of the parish selected a certain number of laymen on whom he could depend, and who, under the name of elders, were his councillors, or rather the ministers of his authority. They, when assembled together, formed what was called the Kirk-Session, and this little court, which enforced the decisions uttered in the pulpit, was so supported by the superstitious reverence of the people, that it was far more powerful than any civil tribunal. By its aid, the minister became supreme. For, whoever presumed to disobey him was excommunicated, was deprived of his property, and was believed to have incurred the penalty of eternal perdition.”AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.6

“The clergy interfered with every man’s private concerns, ordered how he should govern his family, and often took upon themselves the personal control of his household. [Clarendon, under the year 1640, emphatically says, “The preacher reprehended the husband, governed the wife, chastised the children, and insulted over the servants, in the houses of the greatest men.”—Note 26.] Their minions, the elders, were everywhere; for each parish was divided into several quarters, and to each quarter one of these officials was allotted, in order that he might take special notice of what was done in his own district. Besides this, spies were appointed, so that nothing could escape their supervision.”AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.7

Sunday observance was enforced in a manner which, to even the strictest National Reformer, would have been unexceptionable:—AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.8

“Not only the streets, but even private houses, were searched, and ransacked, to see if any one was absent from church while the minister was preaching.” [In 1652, the Kirk Session of Glasgow “brot boyes and servants before them, for breaking the sabbath and other faults. They had clandestine censors, and gave money to some for this end.” And by the Kirk-Session, Presbytery, and Synod of Aberdeen, it was “thochy expedient that ane Baillie with tua of the session pas throw the towne everie sabboth-day, and nott [note] sic as they find absent fra the sermons ather afoir or after none [either before or after noon]: and for that effect that thoy pas and sersche sic house as they think maist meit, and pas athort the streittis.” “Ganging throw the towne on the ordinar preiching days in the welk, als weill as on the sabboth-day to cause the people to resort to the sermons. “The session allous the searchers to go into houses and apprehend absents from the Kirk.]”—Notes 28, 29.AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.9

The preacher was exalted to a position which, in the public mind, must have been but little short of the place of deity:—AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.10

“To him [the minister], all must listen, and him all must obey. Without the consent of his tribunal, no person might engage himself either as a domestic servant, or as a field laborer. If any one incurred the displeasure of the clergy, they did not scruple to summon his servants and force them to state whatever they know respecting him, and whatever they had seen done in his house. [In 1652, Sir Alexander Irvine indignantly writes, that the Presbytery of Aberdeen, “when they had tried many wayes, bot in vaine, to mak probable this their vaine imaginatione, they, at lenthe, when all other meanes failed thame, by ane unparalleled barbaritie, enforced mny serwandis to reweall upon oathe what they sawe, herd, or knewe done within my house, beyond which no Turkische inquisitione could pase.”—Note 31.] To speak disrespectfully of a preacher was a grievous offense; to differ from him was a heresy; even to pass him in the streets without saluting him, was punished as a crime. His very name was regarded as sacred, and not to be taken in vain. And that it might be properly protected, and held in due honor, an assembly of the church, in 1642, forbade it to be used in any public paper unless the consent of the holy man had been previously obtained.”AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.11

The “law and order” leagues, city vigilance leagues, and “societies for the prevention of crime,” were very numerous:—AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.12

“The arbitrary and irresponsible tribunals, which now sprung up all over Scotland, united the executive authority with the legislative, and exercised both functions at the same time. Declaring that certain acts ought not to be committed, they took the law into their own hands, and punished those who had committed them. According to the principles of this new jurisprudence, of which the clergy were the authors, it became a sin for any Scotchman to travel in a Catholic country. It was a sin for any Scotch innkeeper to admit a Catholic into his inn. It was a sin for any Scotch town to hold a market either on Saturday or on Monday, because both days were near Sunday. It was a sin for a Scotchwoman to wait at a tavern; it was a sin for her to live alone; it was also a sin for her to live with unmarried sisters. It was a sin to go from one town to another on Sunday, however pressing the business might be. It was a sin to visit your friend on Sunday.... On that day horse exercise was sinful; so was walking in the fields or in the meadows, or in the streets, or enjoying the fine weather by sitting at the door of your own house. To go to sleep on Sunday, before the duties of the day were over, was also sinful, and deserved church censure.” [The records of the Kirk Session of Aberdeen, in 1656, have this entry: “Cite Leobell Balfort, servand to William Gordone, tailyeor, being found sleeping at the Loche side on the Lord’s day in tyme of sermon.”—Note 186].AMS February 20, 1896, page 60.13

At the “Kirk,” the prayers averaged nearly two hours in length, and the “sermons” about three hours and a half; yet it was a great sin even for the children to become tired before they were ended:—AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.1

“Halyburton, addressing the young people of his congregation, says: ‘Have not you been glad when the Lord’s day was over, or at least, when the preaching was done that ye might get your liberty? Has it not been a burden to you, to sit so long in the church? Well, this is a great sin.’”—Note 186.AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.2

“Heresy,” or “pretended liberty of conscience,” was the crime of crimes, and to be punished accordingly:—AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.3

[“Rutherford’s Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Conscience” says: “We hold that toleration of all religions is not farre from blasphemy.” “If wolves be permitted to teach what is right in their own erroneous conscience, and there be no ‘magistrate to put them to shame,’ Judges 18:7, and no king to punish them, then godliness and all that concerns the first table of the law must be marred.” “Wilde and atheisticall liberty of conscience.”—Notes 199, 200.]AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.4

“They taught that it was a sin to tolerate his [the heretic’s] notions at all, and that the proper course was to visit him with sharp and immediate punishment. Going yet further, they broke the domestic ties, and set parents against their offspring. They taught the father to smite the unbelieving child and to slay his own boy sooner than to allow him to propagate error. [“A third benefit (which is a branch of the former), is zeal in the godly against false teachers, who shall be so tender of the truth and glory of God and the safety of the church (all which are endangered by error), that it shall overcome natural affection in then; so that parents shall not spare their own children, being seducers, but shall either by an heroick act (such as was in Pineas, Numbers 25:8), themselves judge him worthy to die, and give sentence, and execute it, or cause him to be punished, by bringing him to the magistrate.... The toleration of a false religion in doctrine or worship, and the exemption of the erroneous from civil punishment, is not more lawful under the New Testament than it was under the Old.”—Hutcheson’s Exposition on the Minor Prophets, the Prophets, the Prophecie of Zechariah—Note 201.]AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.5

“As if this were not enough, they tried to extirpate another affection, even more sacred and more devoted still. They laid their rude and merciless hands on the holiest passion of which our nature is capable, the love of a mother for her son. Into that sanctuary, they dared to intrude; into that they thrust their grant and ungentle forms. If a mother held opinions of which they disapproved they did not scruple to invade her household, take away her children, and forbid her to hold communication with them. Or if, perchance, her son had incurred their displeasure, they were not satisfied with forcible separation, but they labored to corrupt her heart, and harden it against her child, so that she might be privy to the act. In one of these cases mentioned in the records of the church of Glasgow, the Kird-Session of that town summoned before them a woman, merely because she had received into her own house her own son, after the clergy had excommunicated him. So effectually did they work upon her mind, that they induced her to promise, not only that she would shut her door against the child, but that she would aid in bringing him to punishment. She had sinned in loving him; she had sinned, even, in giving him shelter; but, says the record, ‘she promised not to do it again, and to tell the magistrates when he comes next to her.’AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.6

“She promised not to do it again. She promised to forget him whom she had borne of her womb and suckled at her breast. She promised to forget her boy, who had ofttimes crept to her knees, and had slept in her bosom, and whose tender frame she had watched over and nursed.... To hear of such things is enough to make one’s blood surge again, and raise a tempest in our inmost nature. But to have seen them, to have lived in the midst of them, and yet not to have rebelled against them, is to us utterly inconceivable, and proves in how complete a thralldom the Scotch were held, and how thoroughly their minds, as well as their bodies, were enslaved.AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.7

“What more need I say? What further evidence need I bring to elucidate the real character of one of the most detestable tyrannies ever seen on the earth? When the Scotch Kirck was at the height of its power, we may search history in vain for any institution which can compete with it, except the Spanish Inquisition. Between these two there is a close and intimate analogy. Both were intolerant, both were cruel, both made war upon the finest parts of human nature, and both destroyed every vestige of religious freedom.”AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.8

It may be said, of course, that all this was back in the seventeenth century, when men where narrow and bigoted in their ideas, and intolerant in matters of religion. Yes, that was the seventeenth century, when men were bigoted and self-opinionated and revengeful, and hated others who differed from them, and lusted for power in both civil and spiritual affairs; and this is the nineteenth century, when human nature is exactly the same that it was then. To-day men are narrow-minded, bigoted, full of prejudices and passions, and as eager to obtain power and to use it for any purpose they may see fit, as they ever were in the past. Let the “National Reform” party succeed—let there be a resurrection of the Scottish Covenanter theory of government in this land, and there will a chapter in our national history parallel to that in Scotland’s history to which we have referred.AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.9

We present no arraignment of clergymen, as such; we ourselves believe and preach the gospel of salvation through Christ. If we did not, the AMERICAN SENTINEL would not be published. But there are clergymen and clergymen—some who are eager to get control of civil affairs in order that they may be conducted on a “Christian” basis, and others who see that compulsion in religious matters is contrary to the gospel, and ruinous to both the Church and the State. The clergymen who would assume control of civil affairs if they could, are not to be trusted. And, sad to say, they are a numerous and growing company in our fair land, and are able to marshal a mighty host of adherents.AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.10

The proper administration of civil affairs for the preservation of peace and order, is through the regularly constituted and authorized officials of the government, and not through the clergy, or through “Law and Order” leagues, “City Vigilance” leagues, Epworth leagues, “Christian Endeavor” leagues, societies for the “Prevention of Crime,” or anything else of the sort. If the regularly-constituted officials of the government are not trustworthy, let others be appointed in their place; if they are not sufficiently numerous, let the number be increased. But let religion be kept out of politics, and to all those of whatever profession who would seize upon the civil power in the interests of a religious theory of government, let it be emplatically [sic.] said, “Hands off.”AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.11

“Divine Right” ^{1From chapter XI, “Rights of the People.”} American Sentinel 11, 8, pp. 61, 62.

ATJ

IT is the divine right of every man to believe or not believe, to be religious or not religious, as he shall choose for himself. God himself, in Jesus Christ, has said: “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” John 12:47, 48. Thus the God of heaven, the Author of Christianity, has left every soul free to believe or not believe, to to [sic.] receive or reject, his words, as the man may choose for himself. And when any man chooses not to believe, and chooses to reject his word, the Lord does not condemn him.AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.1

Whoever, therefore, would presume to exercise jurisdiction over the religious belief or observances of any man, or would compel any man to conform to the precepts of any religion, or to comply with the ceremonies of any religious body, or would condemn any man for not so complying, does in that thing put himself above Jesus Christ, and, indeed, above God, for he exercises a prerogative which God himself refuses to exercise.AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.2

The word of God is the word of life. To whomsoever that word comes, whosoever heareth it, to him in that word there comes life from God—eternal life. Then he who rejects that word rejects life. He who rejects life does in that very thing choose death. And he who chooses death by the rejection of life does in that pass judgment of death upon himself. And so it stands written, “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life,” etc. Acts 13:46. Thus it is that God judges no man for rejecting his word; and this is how it is that that word shall judge men in the last day. “In that day” that word of life will stand there as the witness to all that eternal life came to all, but was rejected, and nothing but death remains. And when the death is received, each one receives simply what he has chosen, and in that the God of love does not condemn, but is sorry instead.AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.3

Now to the Christian church is committed this word of life as she is sent into the world. She is to “preach the word.” To her it is written, Do all things without murmurings and disputings; that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of life.” Philippians 2:14-16. Thus the true Church is in the world “in Christ’s stead,” (2 Corinthians 5:20), to hold forth, to bring to men, the word of life. In so doing she judges no one, she condemns no one, she sets at naught no one, for she “is subject unto Christ” in everything (Ephesians 5:24), and he ever says, “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge [condemn] him not.”AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.4

In this word of Christ also establishes the divine right of every man, at his own free choice, to dissent from, and to disregard in every way, any doctrine, dogma, ordinance, rite, or institution of any church on earth. And no man can ever rightly be molested or disquieted in any way whatever in the free exercise of this divine right.AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.5

A Subtle Subterfuge

Professedly this right has always been recognized by both Catholicism and the different sects of Protestantism, but in nearly every instance the profession of recognition of the right has been only a pretense; for, while professing to recognize the right in one way, in another way, and by a sheer subterfuge, it has been denied and attempt made to sweep it entirely away. This subterfuge is for the church to get her dogmas or institutions recognized in the law, and then demand obedience to the law, throwing upon the dissenter the odium of “lawlessness and disrespect for the constituted authorities,” while she poses as the champion of “law and order,” the “conservator of the State, and the stay of society”!AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.6

Of all the hypocritical pretenses that were ever employed, this is perhaps the subtlest, and is certainly the meanest. It fourished throughout the Middle Ages, when anything and everything that the Church could invent was thus forced upon the people. Its slimy trail can be traced throughout the history of the “Protestant” sects, in thus forcing upon the people such peculiar institutions as were characteristic of the sect that could obtain control of the law. And now it is made to flourish again, by all the sects together, in thus forcing upon the people the one thing in which they are all agreed, and in which they have obtained control of the law, ^{2“By a sort of factitious advantage, the observers of Sunday have secured the aid of the civil law, and adhere to that advantage with great tenacity, in spite of the clamor for religious freedom and the progress that has been made in the absolute separation of Church and State.... And the efforts to extirpate the advantage above mentioned, by judicial decision in favor of a civil right to disregard the change, seem to me quite useless.”—U. S. Circuit Court. See “Due Process of Law,” pp. 32, 116.} the observance of Sunday, “the Christian sabbath,” supported by such auxiliary organizations, such wheels within wheels, as the National Reform Association, the American Sabbath Union, the “Law and Order Leagues,” the “Civic Federations,” W.C.T.U., Y.M.C.A., Y.P.S.C.E., and so on through the rest of the alphabet.AMS February 20, 1896, page 61.7

Sunday, not only according to their own showing, but by every other fair showing that can be made, is a religious institution, a church institution, only. This they all know as well as they know anything. And yet every one of these organizations, principal or auxiliary, is working constantly to get this church institution fixed, and more firmly fixed, in the law, with penalties attached that are more worthy of barbarism than of civilization; and then, when anybody objects to it, they all cry out that “it is not a question of religion; it is simply a question of law. We are not asking any religious observance; all that we ask is respect for law”!!AMS February 20, 1896, page 62.1

The Christian, Protestant, and American answer to all this is that neither the Sunday institution nor any other religious or ecclesiastical institution, has any right to a place in the law, this does not take away the right of dissent. The divine right of dissent from religious or ecclesiastical institutions abides ever the same, whether the institution is out of the law or in the law. And when the institution is fixed in the law, the right of dissent then extends to that law. The subterfuge cannot destroy the right.AMS February 20, 1896, page 62.2

The Courts Indorse the Subterfuge.

From the church organizations the courts have caught up this cry. And, though acknowledging that the Sunday institution is religious; that it is enacted and enforced at the will of the church; and that the logic of it is the union of Church and State; yet they insist that, as it is in the law, and the law is for the public good, no right of dissent can be recognized, but the dissenter “may be made to suffer for his defiance by persecutions, if you call them so, on the part of the great majority.” ^{3These are the very words of the United States Circuit Court for the western district of Tennessee, in August, 1891, and in behalf of Sunday too. See “Due Process of Law,” where the decision is printed in full.}AMS February 20, 1896, page 62.3

This argument is as old as is the contest for the right of the free exercise of religious belief. It was the very position occupied by Rome when the disciples of Christ were sent into the world to preach religious freedom to all mankind. Religious observances were enforced by the law. The Christians asserted and maintained the rights to dissent from all such observances, and, in fact, from every one of the religious observances of Rome, and to believe religiously for themselves, though in so doing they totally disregard the laws, which, on the part of the Roman State, were held to be beneficial to the population. Then, as now, it was held that, though religious belief was the foundation of the custom, yet this was no objection to it, because it had become a part of the legal system of the government, and was enforced by the State for its own good. ^{4“The Pagan religion was in truth, so closely interwoven with all the arrangements of civil and social life that it was not always easy to separate and distinguish the barely civil or social from the religious element. Many customs had really sprung from a religious source, whose connection, however, with religion had long been forgotten by the multitude, and remembered only by a few learned antiquarians, lay too far back to be recalled in the popular consciousness.”—Neander, Church History, Vol. I, sec. 2, par. 17.} But Christianity then refused to recognize any validity in any such argument, and so it does now.AMS February 20, 1896, page 62.4