WILL someone who takes exception to the view that politics should be kept separate from religion, please send us a copy of the moral law—the decalogue—of politics?AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.4

THE commission of Christ to his disciples,—“Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” does not mean, Go ye therefore into all the world and control the politics of every nation.AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.5

THE person who claims to be a worshiper of God, while obeying some other power than God, by that disobedience to God proclaims himself a worshiper of a false God. In others words, we worship the power which we obey in religious conduct.AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.6

THERE is a principle in human nature which demands a pope in the Church and a monarch in the State. The divine nature which God puts in the place of human nature, substitutes the government of God for both that of pope and monarch, in the heart.AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.7

IT is very surprising how small an amount of Scripture proof will suffice to convince a person of something he wants to believe; and what a large amount is required to convince him of a plain truth which he does not relish.AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.8

IF the Church has the power of God, the Omnipotent, with her, why should she seek for power from the State? What else can her plea for State and national legislation be but a confession that she has lost the power of God, by having withdrawn herself from him?AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.9

“The Bible Is Science” American Sentinel 12, 31, pp. 481-483.

ATJ

OF all the mistakes that men have made with reference to the Bible, one of the greatest is in thinking that it is not scientific.AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.1

The truth is that the Bible is the most scientific book in the world: the foundation of, and the guide to, all correct science that is known, or that can be known, in the world.AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.2

Our word science, is from the Latin word scientia, which signifies knowledge. The Latin scientia corresponds to the Greek word gnosis, which signifies knowledge. Accordingly science is simply knowledge.AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.3

But is not the Bible knowledge? The Bible comes to the world from God: everywhere its claim is “Thus saith the Lord;” “God spake;” “the word of the Lord,” etc. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.4

And does not God know?—He does. Is not that knowledge which comes from God for the instruction of men?—It is. Then as science is only knowledge; and as the Bible is knowledge, it certainly follows that the Bible is science.AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.5

It is true that science signifies knowledge of more than a common order. The Latin scientia signifies “being skilled in knowledge,” knowledge of a high order; and the Greek gnosis signifies “higher knowledge,” “deeper wisdom.” But is not God’s knowledge of a high order? Is not he skilled in knowledge? Is not his wisdom deep? There can be no higher knowledge than that of God. There can be no deeper wisdom than his. Therefore as science is higher knowledge: and as there can be no higher knowledge than that of God, it is certain that the knowledge of God is science, and that it is science of the highest kind. And as in the Bible the knowledge of God is revealed: and as the knowledge of God is highest science, it is certainly true that in the Bible is the highest science.AMS August 5, 1897, page 481.6

It is written: “He that is perfect in knowledge is with thee.” Science is knowledge. Perfect knowledge is perfect science. The knowledge of God being perfect, is perfect science. This knowledge of God is revealed in the Bible. It is therefore perfectly certain that in the Bible, and the Bible itself, is perfect science.AMS August 5, 1897, page 482.1

Another definition of science is given as: “Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths, or the operation of general laws.” The Bible meets this definition more fully and exactly than any other book in the world. The Bible is the knowledge of God. This, being perfect knowledge, is established knowledge; for He is “the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever,” and with him “is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” In the Bible this knowledge is accumulated, “line upon line, and precept upon precept; line upon line and precept upon precept.” In the Bible this perfect knowledge has been, and is, systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths, or the operation of general laws—in other words, of principles. According to this definition therefore, the Bible is strictly science.AMS August 5, 1897, page 482.2

Yet another statement, by a scientific writer, is that “All sciences are the products of the mind.” Very good. But shall it be said that the Bible is not the product of mind? Of course it will not be claimed that whatsoever is the produce of mind is science. But shall it be claimed that the Bible is not sufficiently the product of mind to be worthy of recognition as science? or shall it be said that it is not the product of a mind that may be recognized as scientific? All of this must be said, all of it is said, when it is said that the Bible is not science, or is not scientific.AMS August 5, 1897, page 482.3

The Bible is the word of God. Words express thoughts. The word of God, then, is the expression of the thought of God. It is therefore inevitably the product of the divine mind. And how can it possibly be said that the product of the divine mind is not science? How can it be thought that the divine mind is of such a low order that it cannot properly be considered scientific? With any recognition of God at all, no such thing can be said or thought. As certainly as God shall be recognized at all, he must be recognized as God. And He who created the mind, shall not He think? He who created minds whose product is expected to be accepted as science—shall not the product of His mind be accepted as science?AMS August 5, 1897, page 482.4

Science, then, being the product of mind; and the Bible being the product of the divine mind, it is certainly true that the Bible is not only science, but it is divine science. And when the Bible meets fully and fairly each definition of science, it is not scientific for any scientist or anybody else to say that the Bible is not science.AMS August 5, 1897, page 482.5

By all these considerations, and many more that can be given, therefore, it is perfectly plain that the phrase “Science and the Bible,” that is so much used nowadays, is altogether invalid. It is unsound from the beginning and has not a particle of merit. It is one of those boastful, self-assertive, things that are set forth with great show of knowledge, but which, having no merit of their own, are obliged to beg their way. This one begins at begging everything. It is expected that by the sheer weight of its appearance of superior knowledge, every being will at once fall prostrate and humbly pray it to accept all that it is forced to beg. Instead of this, however, the brazen thing should have its mask plucked off, and be made to stand upon merit only. It must not be allowed to receive anything to which it cannot present strictly just and valid claim.AMS August 5, 1897, page 482.6

Now, this phrase, “Science and the Bible,” asserts in itself, that the Bible is not science. To admit the correctness of the phrase, as it is asserted, is to allow that the Bible is not science. But why should the phrase be admitted? There is not a single definition of science that is not fully met by the Bible as science. Strictly and truly, yea supremely, the Bible is science. Why then, upon what principle of reason or propriety, should the phrase be admitted as valid when on its very face it denies that the Bible is science?AMS August 5, 1897, page 482.7

If any one wants to deny that the Bible is science, let him do it. But let him do it by presenting what seem to him considerations that show that it is not science, instead of flaunting a phrase that begs all that it is bound to show. This however cannot be done: the very word “science,” itself is against it. Every accepted definition of the word is against it. The root idea of the word, the very nature of the word itself, will have to be obliterated, before it can be shown, or even fairly claimed, that the Bible is not science.AMS August 5, 1897, page 482.8

There is therefore no place for any such expression “Science and the Bible” or “The Bible and Science” because the Bible is science. As the Bible is science, what such expressions really say is, “Science and Science.” This indeed might be well enough, if that were meant, but when the only thing intended is the begging suggestion that the Bible is not science, there can be no place for it in the world.AMS August 5, 1897, page 482.9

No; the Bible, being strictly and truly science, the only way in which there can ever be any contrast or “conflict” between science and the Bible, is between God and science and man’s science, between divine science and human science, between perfect science and imperfect science.AMS August 5, 1897, page 482.10

Between God’s science and man’s science, there may very easily be a contrast; but with any one who has any respect for God at all, can there ever be any question as to which justly belongs the preference or which shall have precedence?AMS August 5, 1897, page 483.1

Between divine science and human science there may indeed arise a “conflict;” but in the mind of any one who recognizes God at all and has any respect for him, can there ever be for a moment any question as to which shall surrender or give way? And when such a conflict does arise, and the human refuses to surrender, or give way, to the divine, but continues the conflict, what is that but to argue that the human is greater than the divine, and that therefore the divine must surrender and give way to the human?AMS August 5, 1897, page 483.2

But for the human to continue a conflict with the divine, and thus to argue that the human is greater than the divine, is simply for the human to supplant the divine, and itself set up claim for recognition as such, or else to claim that there is no divinity.AMS August 5, 1897, page 483.3

And this is the essential defect of the phrase “Science and the Bible“: it argues that the Bible is not science, and in that it argues that the Bible is not the knowledge of God, that it is not the product of the divine mind—in short, it argues that the Bible is not of God. The phrase “Science and the Bible” is therefore infidel on its very face.AMS August 5, 1897, page 483.4

But the Bible is the knowledge of God. The Bible is a product of the divine mind. It is accumulated and established knowledge which has been systematized and formulated with reference to principles. It is therefore easily and emphatically science in every true sense of the word.AMS August 5, 1897, page 483.5

“Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” “I will never leave thee, nor forsake them.” “He that is perfect in knowledge—[science]—is with thee.” “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge [science].” “If thou criest after knowledge [science], and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge [science] of God.” “In God, the Father, and in Christ, are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”—all the treasures of philosophy and science. That is the everlasting truth. And let all the people say, Amen.AMS August 5, 1897, page 483.6

“The ‘Civil Sabbath’ ‘Corpse’” American Sentinel 12, 31, pp. 483, 484.

ATJ

THE likening of the “civil sabbath” to a corpse, which would become offensive and demand burial, was a feature of one of the speeches made at the late Christian Endeavor convention in San Francisco. The occasion was a meeting of the “Sabbath Observance Committee” of the convention at the Central M. E. Church, July 9. The speaker—who represented Wisconsin in the sabbath observance department of the society—said:—AMS August 5, 1897, page 483.1

“The holiness of the [rest] day is the soul of it. Without that it becomes a dead corpse, something that will fill the land with poison, and the land would be ready to bury the sabbath whenever the soul is taken from it. We must teach the workingmen of the land that in order to secure the rest part of the day they must keep it holy.”AMS August 5, 1897, page 483.2

Now, as the “civil sabbath” does not pretend to be a holy day, but is simply a rest day or sabbath prescribed by the civil law, it is according to this speaker’s language nothing else than a dead corpse, whose burial the land will demand unless it can have a soul put into it to give it life. But the law cannot put a soul into it; the law cannot impart holiness to a day or cause it to be kept holy. All that the law can do is to make the “corpse,” which in itself is a menace to the whole land. Is this a proper thing for the law to do?AMS August 5, 1897, page 483.3

The words of this speaker are true. Holiness is the soul the Sabbath; and robbed of this quality it becomes worse than useless. But what is to impart holiness to the “civil sabbath?” There will be vast multitudes of people all over the land observing the day because the law has commanded it, and not even pretending to keep it holy, because they do not care anything about religion. The great majority of the people here, as in other lands, are not Christians—do not, indeed, even belong to any church. And to each one of these the “civil” or soulless sabbath will be as a “dead corpse”—a “savor of death unto death.” This must be so, unless in some way these multitudes shall be converted to Christianity so that they will keep the Sabbath holy. But where is the promise that such a miracle will be speedily—or even—accomplished?AMS August 5, 1897, page 483.4

Yet the churches are calling for Sunday laws—for a “civil sabbath”—as if this were the one great thing which the country needs. Do they think the country needs the polluting presence of a “dead corpse”? Do the rest of the people think so?AMS August 5, 1897, page 484.1

If not, then let us dispense with the “civil sabbath.”AMS August 5, 1897, page 484.2

It should be remembered, too, that only God can make a day holy; and there is no proof that He ever hallowed the day set apart by the Sunday statutes.AMS August 5, 1897, page 484.3

July 29, 1897

August 12, 1897