March 19, 1896

“Religion and Revolution” American Sentinel 11, 12, pp. 89, 90.

ATJ

A LITTLE more than a hundred years ago, the civilized world stood within the shadow of the greatest tragedy of modern times. It was the eve of the French Revolution. Thrones which stood in fancied security were to be rudely shaken, and institutions and doctrines which had grown venerable under the sanction of time and tradition, were to be overturned and lost in the great upheaval.AMS March 19, 1896, page 89.1

To-day, we are still in the era of revolution. The causes from which political and social mutations take their rise, having their seat in the selfishness of human nature, are not eradicated by the changes which the produce. Neither the lapse of time nor the civilization of the nineteenth century, afford us immunity from their operation.AMS March 19, 1896, page 89.2

There are ominous signs upon the horizon of our own national future. In a manner more or less perceptible to all, the air is darkened by the shadows of coming events. It is fitting at such a time that we should note the real causes which culminated in the convulsion of a century ago, and the extent to which, as concerns them, history may be repeating itself to-day.AMS March 19, 1896, page 89.3

The French Revolution is commonly spoken of as an outburst of atheism. That this was a prominent feature of the Revolution no one denies; but it is proper to inquire, What produced the atheism? Man is not naturally an atheist. And if we look into the condition of society and the church, as it was in France just prior to the Revolution, we shall find abundant cause for the irreligion which at that time burst forth like a devastating flood upon the realm.AMS March 19, 1896, page 89.4

“There were twenty-three thousand monks in France,” says Ridpath; “there were sixty thousand curates and vicars; there were thirty-seven thousand nuns; there were two thousand five hundred monasteries; one thousand five hundred convents, and sixty thousand churches and chapels. In all there were a hundred and thirty thousand persons who enjoyed themselves in the work of saving France from her sins. But they did not begin with themselves.AMS March 19, 1896, page 89.5

“There were a hundred and forty thousand nobles in France... The noble families numbered thirty thousand. On each square league of territory, and for each one thousand of the inhabitants there was one castle, one noble family. France was not only saved but she was ennobled. It required a great deal of land to support properly the dignity and office of one of her saviours. The abbey of St. Germain des Pres owned about nine hundred acres. One fifth of all the lands of France belonged to the clergy, one fifth to the nobility, one fifth to the communes and the king. This made three fifths.” ^{1“History of the World,” Vol. III, chap 47.}AMS March 19, 1896, page 89.6

This three fifths of the land was the richest and most valuable land in France. Of the value of that part belonging to the clergy we are told: “Its possessions, capitalized, amount to nearly four billion francs; the income from this amounts to eighty or a hundred millions, to which must be added the dime or tithes,—a hundred and twenty-three millions per annum; in all two hundred millions, a sum which must be doubled to show its equivalent at the present day; and to this must be added the chance contributions and the usual church collections.” ^2Ib.AMS March 19, 1896, page 89.7

Coming to particulars, it is stated that four hundred monks at Premontro possessed a capital of forty-five million livres, from which they derived a remedy of more than one million livres. The Benedictines of Cluny, two hundred and thirty-eight in number, enjoyed an income of one million eight hundred thousand livres. The abbot of Clairvaux had a yearly income of more than three hundred thousand livres; the archbishop of Strasburg had an income of more than a million, etc.AMS March 19, 1896, page 89.8

In Mexico, when the French monarchy under Maximilian was overthrown, the value of the church property was $300,000,000, and its income was more than that of the Mexican Government. In the United States, the amount of untaxed church property, as shown by the census of 1890, is $679,630,139. Of this the Roman Catholic Church,—the church of France and Mexico, holds $118,069,746; but even she is second to the Methodist Church, which holds in the aggregate of her various bodies property valued at $132,140,179.AMS March 19, 1896, page 89.9

In France, at the time of the Revolution, there were twenty-six millions of people of the laboring classes, and upon them rested the burden of supporting themselves, the privileged classes, and the government. They were taxed without mercy, while the nobles and clergy were exempt.AMS March 19, 1896, page 89.10

As a straw showing which way the wind is blowing, it is worthy of note that a bill has been recently introduced into the New York legislature, which provides for exempting from taxation “the personal property of every minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination, or every such minister or priest who is permanently disabled by impaired health from performing the active duties of the ministry, and every such minister or priest who has reached the age of seventy-five years; and the real estate of such minister or priest or such disabled or aged minister or priest, provided such real or personal estate do not exceed the value of one thousand five hundred dollars.”AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.1

The parallel is being even more rapidly drawn with respect to the theory of government. Of the epoch which ushered in the Revolution, the historian says: “At this epoch nearly the whole activity of France was displayed in the government. The government was everything. It was meant to be so. The doctrines of paternalism in the State were completely triumphant. The theory reduced to a formula ran thus: It is the duty—the business—of the State to teach men what things to do, and of the Church to teach them what things to believe. As for man, it is his business to be governed. That is—and was—the object of his creation. He must receive with unquestioning simplicity and obedience whatever is doled out to him by the noble and the priest to whom his management, his interests, his destiny, in this world are entrusted.”AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.2

There was in such a system no development of manhood, no formation of stable character, no quickening of the conscience. The moral nature was dwarfed; all the better impulses of human nature were palsied; hate and malignity were engendered; and the scenes depicted in our illustration were only the inevitable result when once restraint was thrown off.AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.3

To-day, in our own land, the doctrine of paternalism is fast displacing the theory of government espoused by the founders of the Republic. The sphere of individualism has been contracted to very narrow limits. Men are taught that their first duty to the State is obedience to the law, whether the law be good or bad; they are taught to set “law” above justice, thus virtually ignoring their prerogative of self-government, which asserts that they are free from obligation to any form of legalized wrong.AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.4

The Church, with all her religious allies, has entered the arena of politics, and assumes the right to dictate the law for nation, State, and city. The Church and the aristocracy of wealth, control the government; and the people—the mere toilers and producers—exist to be governed and to pay the taxes. The doctrine of individual inalienable rights is relegated to the background; the scheme of government has been transferred from the basis of individual rights, recognized by the Declaration of Independence, to the undefinable one of the “best good of the majority.” And the clergy and the “nobles,” the “better classes,” speak for the majority.AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.5

The French Revolution was a struggle for the mastery between the privileged classes and the people. “It was,” says Ridpath, “simply a revolt, an insurrection of the emancipated mind of France against the tyranny of her social, civil ad religious institutions—a rebellion of man against his masters—a struggle of the human spirit to break an intolerable thralldom which had been imposed upon it by the past.” The spirit of self-exaltation, making unscrupulous use of the power pertaining to wealth and station, had made the multitudes slaves both in soul and body, to human taskmasters. It had bound them in the chains of both a civil and a spiritual tyranny. And when the spirit of liberty in the breasts of the downtrodden asserted itself and burst those chains, the popular demonstrations against the Church and religion were as natural as were those against the nobles and royalty.AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.6

The atheism of the French Revolution was the legitimate fruit of the spiritual despotism imposed upon the people by the Papacy. In the papal system, the spirit of self-exaltation finds its fullest and most conspicuous embodiment. By it a mortal man, under the name of pope, is exalted to the place of God, while other fallible mortals, such as cardinals, bishops, and priests, are held up to their fellow-motals as invested with the authority and prerogatives of God. And when man is put in the place of God, the result is always a spiritual tyranny. It cannot possibly be otherwise; for the power and wisdom of man cannot rise to the level of divinity. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” ^{32 Corinthians 3:17.} but the spirit of man cannot give liberty in the religious life. The despotism breeds revolt; and revolt, when directed against religion, naturally manifests itself in atheism. The papal religion is full of the seeds of this baleful fruit.AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.7

“The religion of the French Revolution,” says Prof. Goldwin Smith, “was a State church which, deserted by the convictions of the people, but retaining their outward allegiance, reduced them to hypocrisy and to atheism.”AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.8

There is nothing in Christianity that tends to the violence of revolution. The revolution accomplished by Christianity is the revolution of the individual. Christianity means freedom through the Spirit and power of God; and having this soul freedom, men are more desirous of imparting the same blessing to others than of laying violent hands upon the fabric of government. They seek to promote the welfare of themselves and of mankind through the uplifting power of the gospel of Christ, rather than by the violence of carnal warfare; and while conducting themselves at all times as the champions of the cause of humanity and the rights of the people, will if possible, follow after the things which make for peace.AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.9

Had the people of France known the freedom of the gospel instead of the despotism of the Papacy, the terrible scenes of the French Revolution would never have been. But the seeds of atheism, and of resistance to the restraints of both God and man, had been sown by a religion which put man in the place of God, tradition and dogma in the place of God’s word, and the law of man in the place of conscience. The prevailing conditions gave opportunity for its perfect development, and the world shuddered at the harvest. But the lesson was not sufficiently understood and appropriated by mankind. And now, in these United States, as well as elsewhere in the civilized world, the same influences are at work to bring man into a position where they will be ready to make a like mad and blind effort to reform government and society, and realize the good to which they feel they have a birthright claim. But the hope of mankind lies in the divinely-revealed assurance that the Author of liberty and of every blessing is about to take the affairs of earth into his own hands, to root out of it all things that are evil, and to usher his righteous people into the eternal era of happiness and peace.AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.10

“The Only Remedy” American Sentinel 11, 12, pp. 90, 91.

ATJ

“IS it not perfectly manifest,” says the Christian Statesman, of February 22, “after all our comparatively fruitless efforts to cure our festering political corruption by other means, that the only adequate remedy is to bring our nation into acknowledged subjection to the perfect and purifying law of Christ?” This it says in behalf of the so-called Christian Amendment which it is trying to have fastened upon the national Constitution.AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.1

The “purifying law of Christ” does not consist in the written words of an acknowledgment, but is “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” which makes the believer free from the “law of sin and death.” ^{1Romans 8:2.} It is the very life of Christ, which he lives in the believer’s heart. ^{2Galatians 2:20.} It is therefore altogether above and beyond the reach of the United States Constitution. Only a very low and altogether earthly view of the purifying law of Christ could ever have conceived it as being applicable to the nation through the Constitution.AMS March 19, 1896, page 90.2

It is an easy thing to make an acknowledgment or profession of Christianity; but mere profession accomplishes nothing. So long as the hearts of legislators and of the people are filled with the natural depravity of human nature, so long will “our festering political corruption” remain uncured, whatever profession may be inserted into the Constitution.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.1

“Keeping Sunday Religiously” American Sentinel 11, 12, p. 91.

ATJ

AMS an argument in behalf of Sunday “laws,” it is said that such legislation as is called for does not infringe upon any person’s rights of conscience, since it does not require that Sunday should be kept religiously.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.1

Just what would constitute a religious observance of Sunday, in the minds of those who makes use of this “argument,” we are not told. But it is not their nor any person’s ideas upon this point that determine the propriety of Sunday legislation from the standpoint of interference with conscience. That must be determined by the truth, as defined by Him whose word is truth. And the truth is that refraining from work upon the first or any other day of the week, so as to acknowledge that day as a weekly rest day, is a religious act. It must of necessity have this significance.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.2

A weekly rest day is wholly a religious institution. It was given to man as such by the Creator. Genesis 2:2, 3; Exodus 20:8-11; Ezekiel 20:12, 20. Rest from secular work is an essential part of the keeping of the Sabbath commandment. And from the very fact that the Sabbath is wholly a religious institution—since it is “the Sabbath of the Lord”—and that rest from secular labor is an essential part of its observance, such weekly rest upon Sunday must have a religious significance. Being exactly similar to the Sabbath rest which God commanded, so far as regards the performance of secular work, it is either that rest itself or a counterfeit of it; in either of which cases its significance is religious.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.3

A counterfeit dollar bill has the significance of money, and is intended by its maker to serve the purpose of money. So it is with the Sunday sabbath. It must of necessity have the significance of the institution which it professes to be, or of which it claims to be a pattern; and that significance is wholly religious.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.4

Hence the weekly Sunday rest which is demanded by Sunday “laws” is a religious act, and the plea that such “laws” do not require any person to keep Sunday religiously, is of no force. By the very fact of requiring Sunday rest, they require a religious observance, and hence go entirely beyond the legitimate sphere of civil legislation.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.5

Let the truth be kept in mind that the Sabbath is wholly a religious institution. This is shown by the fact, already pointed out, that it is “the Sabbath of the Lord.” God has stated expressly that the Sabbath is his and not man’s. “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” See Exodus 20:8-11; Isaiah 58:13; Ezekiel 20:12, 20. In the light of this fact, the impropriety of human sabbath “laws” may be seen in full. The Sabbath is God’s sign between himself and his people. It is the mark of his Godhead, pointing out him who has creative power, and who is therefore the true God. Hence man has no business to meddle with it. Even a trademark is recognized in human law as the property of its originator. No other party is allowed to appropriate it. How much more, then, is God’s Sabbath sacred to him—to the high and holy purpose specified in his law, as the memorial of him who has power to create and redeem! Yet men speak of the Sabbath as though it were their common property, to be put to their own uses and legislated upon as they see fit!AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.6

The American Government is very jealous—and properly so—of its currency. It punishes counterfeiting with severe penalties. It will not allow any imitation of that which constitutes its currency, whether of coin or paper, and whether it be intended to serve the purpose of money or not. Its secret service officials promptly seize and confiscate all such imitations, no matter if obviously intended to serve only as medals or as advertisements. And why will not men recognize the principle in its application to that which is infinitely more sacred and important,—the memorial or “sign” (Ezekiel 20:12, 20) of God between himself and his people? Why will they not treat God’s sacred things with at least as much respect as is made obligatory with regard to man’s things? Oh that all men would recognize the iniquitous folly of enacting sabbath “laws,” and cease to intrude with their human legislation upon that which is holy unto the Lord.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.7

“The Origin and Nature of Sunday ‘Laws’” American Sentinel 11, 12, pp. 91, 92.

ATJ

THE various bills relating more or less directly to Sunday now before Congress and several of the State legislatures, render timely an examination of the origin and nature of Sunday “laws.”AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.1

The first “law” of this character, a copy of which has been preserved to us, is Constantine’s edict of A.D. 321. Sozomen says that it was “that the day might be devoted with less interruption to the purposes of devotion.” And this statement of Sozomen’s is indorsed by Neander. ^{1“Church History,” Vol. II, p. 298.} This reason given by Sozomen reveals the secret of the legislation; it shows that it was in behalf of the church, and to please the church.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.2

By reading the above edict, it is seen that they started out quite moderately. They did not stop all work; only judges, towns-people, and mechanics were required to rest, while people in the country might freely and lawfully work. The emperor paraded his soldiers on Sunday, and required them to repeat in concert the following prayer:—AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.3

Thee alone we acknowledge as the true God; thee we acknowledge as Ruler; thee we invoke for help; from thee have we received the victory; through thee have we conquered our enemies; to thee are we indebted for our present blessings; from thee also we hope for future favors; to thee we will direct our prayer. We beseech thee, that thou wouldst preserve our Emperor Constantine and his pious sons in health and prosperity through the longest life. ^{2Eusebius Life of Constantine, book iv., chap 20.}AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.4

This Sunday law of A.D. 321 continued until 386, when “those older changes effected by the Emperor Constantine were more rigorously enforced, and, in general, civil transactions of every kind on Sunday were strictly forbidden. Whoever transgressed was to be considered, in fact, as guilty of sacrilege.” ^{3Torrey’s Neander, p. 300.}AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.5

Then as the people were not allowed to do any manner of work, they would play, and as the natural consequence, the circuses and the theaters throughout the empire were crowded every Sunday. But the object of the law, from the first one that was issued, was that the day might be used for the purposes of devotion, and the people might go to church. Consequently, that this object might be met, there was another step to take, and it was taken. At a church convention held at Carthage in 401, the bishops passed a resolution to send up a petition to the emperor, praying “that the public shows might be transferred from the Christian Sunday, and from feast days, to some other days of the week.” ^4Ib.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.6

And the reason given in support of the petition was, “The people congregate more to the circus than to the church.” ^{5Ib., note 5.}AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.7

In the circuses and the theaters large numbers of men were employed, among whom many were church-members. But, rather than to give up their jobs, they would work on Sunday. The bishops complained that these were compelled to work; they pronounced it persecution, and asked for a law to protect those persons from such “persecution.” The church had become filled with a mass of people, unconverted, who cared vastly more for worldly interests and pleasures than they did for religion. And as the government was now a government of God, it was considered proper that the civil power should be used to cause all to show respect for God, whether or not they had any respect for him or not.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.8

But as long as they could make something by working on Sunday, they would work rather than go to church. A law was secured forbidding all manner of Sunday work. Then they would crowd the circuses and the theaters, instead of going to church. But this was not what the bishops wanted; this was not that for which all work had been forbidden. All work was forbidden in order that the people might go to church; but instead of that, they crowded to the circus and the theater, and the audiences of the bishops were rather slim. This was not at all satisfying to their pride; therefore the next step, and a logical one, too, was, as the petition prayed, to have the exhibitions of the circuses and the theaters transferred to some other days of the week, so that the churches and the theaters should not be open at the same time. For if both were open, the Christians(?), as well as others, not being able to go to both places at once, would go to the circus or the theater instead of to the church. Neander says:—AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.9

Owing to the prevailing passion at that time, especially in the large cities, to run after the various public shows, it so happened that when these spectacles fell on the same days which had been consecrated by the church to some religious festival, they proved a great hindrance to the devotion of Christians, though chiefly, it must be allowed, to those whose Christianity was the least an affair of the life and of the heart. ^6Ib.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.10

Assuredly! An open circus or theater will always prove a great hindrance to the devotion of those “Christians” whose Christianity is the least an affair of the life and of the heart. In other words, an open circus or theater will always be a great hindrance to the devotion of those who have not religion enough to keep them from going to it, but who only want to use the profession of religion to maintain their popularity, and to promote their selfish interests. On the other hand, to the devotion of those whose Christianity is really an affair of the life and of the heart, an open circus or theater will never be a particle of hindrance, whether open at church time or all the time. But those people had not enough religion or love of right, to do what they thought to be right; therefore they wanted the State to take away from them all opportunity to do wrong, so that they could all be Christians. Satan himself could be made that kind of Christian in that way: but he would be Satan still.AMS March 19, 1896, page 91.11

Says Neander again:—AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.1

Church teachers ... were in truth often forced to complain that in such competitions the theater was vastly more frequented than the church. ^7Ib.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.2

And the church could not then stand competition; she wanted a monopoly. And she got it. And the “church” wants a monopoly to-day.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.3

This petition of the Carthage Convention could not be granted at once, but in 425 the desired law was secured; and to this also there was attached the reason that was given for the first Sunday law that ever was made; namely: “In order that the devotion of the faithful might be free from all disturbance.” ^{8Id. p. 301.}AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.4

It must constantly be borne in mind, however, that the only way in which “the devotion of the faithful” was “disturbed” by these things, was that when the circus or the theater was open at the same time that the church was open, the “faithful” would go to the circus or the theater instead of to church, and, therefore, their “devotion” was “disturbed.” And of course the only way in which the “devotion” of such “faithful” ones could be freed from all disturbance, was to close the circuses and the theaters at church time.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.5

In the logic of this theocratical scheme, there was one more step to be taken. It came about in this way: First, the church had all work on Sunday forbidden, in order that the people might attend to things divine. But the people went to the circus and the theater instead of to church. Then the church had laws enacted closing the circuses and the theaters, in order that the people might attend to things divine. But even then the people would not be devoted, nor attend to things divine; for they had no real religion. The next step to be taken, therefore, in the logic of the situation, was to compel them to be devoted—to compel them to attend to things divine. This was the next step logically to be taken, and it was taken. The theocratical bishops were equal to the occasion. They were ready with a theory that exactly met the demands of the case; and the great Catholic Church Father and Catholic saint, Augustine, was the father of this Catholic saintly theory. He wrote:—AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.6

It is indeed better that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment, or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected. Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain to the highest grade of religious development. ^{9Schaff’s Church History, Vol. II, sec. 27.}AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.7

Of this theory Neander remarks:—AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.8

It was by Augustine, then, that a theory was proposed and founded, which ... contained the germ of that whole system of spiritual despotism of intolerance and persecution, which ended in the tribunals of the Inquisition. ^{10Church History, p. 217.}AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.9

The history of the Inquisition is only the history of the carrying out of this infamous theory of Augustine’s. But this theory is only the logical sequence of the theory upon which the whole series of Sunday laws was founded.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.10

Then says Neander: “In this way the church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends.”AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.11

This statement is correct. Constantine did many things to favor the bishops. He gave them money and political preference. He made their decisions in disputed cases final, as the decision of Jesus Christ. But in nothing that he did for them did he give them power over those who did not belong to the church, to compel them to act as though they did, except in that one thing of the Sunday law. Their decisions, which he decreed to be final, were binding only on those who voluntarily chose that tribunal, and affected none others.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.12

Before this time, if any who had repaired to the tribunal of the bishops were dissatisfied with the decision, they could appeal to the civil magistrate. This edict cut off that source of appeal, yet affected none but those who voluntarily chose the arbitration of the bishops. But in the Sunday “law” power was given to the church to compel those who did not belong to the church, and who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the church, to obey the commands of the church. In the Sunday “law” there was given to the church control of the civil power, that by it she could compel those who did not belong to the church to act as if they did.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.13

The history of Constantine’s time may be searched through and through, and it will be found that in nothing did he give to the church any such power, except in this one thing—the Sunday “law”. Neander’s statement is literally correct, that it was “in this way the church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends.” And it is “in this way” that the “church” is still demanding and receiving help from the State, and getting it only too often.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.14

“Religious Right in the United States” ^{1From chap. V., “Rights of the People.”} American Sentinel 11, 12, pp. 94, 95.

ATJ

“ALL men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The first and greatest of all the rights of men is religious right. Religion and the manner of discharging it is the duty which men owe to their Creator, and the manner of discharging it. The first of all duties is to the Creator, because to him we owe our existence. Therefore the first of all commandments, and the first that there can possibly be, is this: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord thy God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first commandment.” Mark 12:29, 30.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.15

This commandment existed as soon as there was an intelligent creature in the universe; and it will continue to exist as long as there shall continue one intelligent creature in the universe. Nor can a universe full of intelligent creatures modify in any sense the bearing that this commandment has upon any single one, any more than if that single one were the only creature in the universe. For as soon as an intelligent creature exists, he owes his existence to the Creator. And in owing to him his existence, he owes to him the first consideration in all the accompaniments and all the possibilities of existence. Such is the origin, such the nature, and such the measure, of religious right.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.16

Did, then, the fathers who laid the foundation of this nation in the rights of the people—did they allow to this right the place and deference among the rights of the people which, according to its inherent importance, is justly its due? That is, Did they leave it sacred and untouched solely between man and his Creator?AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.17

The logic of the Declaration demanded that they should; for the Declaration says that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Governments, then, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, never can of right exercise any power not delegated by the governed. But religion pertains solely to man’s relation to God, and to the duty which he owes to him as his Creator, and therefore in the nature of things it can never be delegated.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.18

It is utterly impossible for any person ever, in any degree, to delegate or transfer to another any relationship or duty, or the exercise of any relationship or duty, which he owes to his Creator. To attempt to do so would be only to deny God and renounce religion, and even then the thing would not be done; for, whatever he might do, his relationship and duty to God would still abide as fully and as firmly as ever.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.19

As governments derive their just powers from the governed; as governments can not justly exercise any power not delegated; and as it is impossible for any person in any way to delegate any power in things religious; it follows conclusively that the Declaration of Independence logically excludes religion in every sense and in every way from the jurisdiction and from the notice of every form of government that could result from that Declaration.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.20

This is scriptural, too. For to the definition that religion is “the recognition of God as an object of worship, love, and obedience,” the Scripture responds: “It is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Romans 14:11, 12.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.21

To the statement that religion is “man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God,” the Scripture responds, “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.” Romans 14:22.AMS March 19, 1896, page 92.22

And to the word that religion is “the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it,” the Scripture still responds, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” 2 Corinthians 5:10.AMS March 19, 1896, page 95.1

No government can ever account to God for any individual. No man nor any set of men can ever have faith for another. No government will ever stand before the judgment seat of Christ to answer even for itself, much less for the people or for any individual. Therefore, no government can ever of right assume any responsibility in any way in any matter of religion.AMS March 19, 1896, page 95.2