Larger font
Smaller font
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font

    April 19, 1900

    “Front Page” American Sentinel 15, 16, p. 241.


    CONSCIENCE can be properly surrendered only to the Word of God.AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.1

    LAWS touching religion interpose the state between the soul and its Creator.AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.2

    THE duties we are to render to Cesar are never those which belong to God.AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.3

    GOD does not force any of his gifts upon mankind, and no man ought to try to force His gifts upon his fellowmen.AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.4

    LAWS which are to maintain justice between man and man, must be founded upon something else than religious belief.AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.5

    IT is one thing to demonstrate the necessity of a weekly rest, and quite another thing to demonstrate the propriety of a Sunday law.AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.6

    JESUS CHRIST’S solution for the workingman’s rest problem, and the only solution he ever advocated, is, “Come unto Me, all ye that labor, and are heavy laden; and I will give you rest.” Have clergymen found a better one to-day?AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.7

    THE Sunday laws, as enforced in some States, give the seventh-day keeper the alternative of dispensing with his property or dispensing with his conscience.AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.8

    HOW CAN Sunday be both a religious and a “civil” Sabbath? How can a thing be both sacred and secular law? both tall and short? both white and black? Who can tell?AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.9

    LIGHT needs no protection against darkness, nor truth against error, nor Christianity against false religions. When men are protected in their rights, religion will take care of itself.AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.10

    “A New ‘Sovereignty’ in the United States” American Sentinel 15, 16, pp. 241, 242.


    A POLITICAL party in Maine—which one is not a material question here—at its State convention held recently adopted resolutions in which it is stated that—AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.1

    “Congress may be safely depended upon to secure to all who accept its sovereignty the blessings of a just government and a progressive civilization.”AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.2

    The noteworthy point in this is the idea it puts forth of the sovereignty of Congress. This is strange political doctrine for this country. If Congress is the sovereign, what are the people? It has been understood heretofore that the sovereignty of the United States resides in the people, and the Congress has only such power and authority as are expressly granted to it by the Constitution. Now we have it plainly asserted that Congress possess sovereignty in itself.AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.3

    If this were the first appearance of the doctrine of sovereignty in the United States other than that of the people, it might be taken for a mere mental slip on the part of its authors. But this doctrine has become too prominent to warrant such a view of this assertion of congressional sovereignty. For years there has been a plain tendency towards the transference of power from the people to certain classes and parties in the Government, to such a degree as even to suggest the coming of an absolute monarchy. We are hearing of “government without the Constitution” and even of “government by a single mind” as conditions at which, if realized here, the American people should not be greatly surprised. And with this the idea of the sovereignty of Congress is in perfect harmony.AMS April 19, 1900, page 241.4

    The people do not appreciate the importance of retaining the sovereignty in their own hands. They are, for the most part, absorbed in getting rich, as Jefferson prophesied would be the case; and unscrupulous men of ambition, realizing their opportunity, are robbing them of their power and undermining the structure of American constitutional government.AMS April 19, 1900, page 242.1

    “Government without the Constitution,” and the “sovereignty of Congress” are expressions meaning one and the same thing. The Constitution is the rule of government declared by “we, the people of the United States.” The “sovereignty” of Congress must necessarily exist outside the Constitution; and it can exist at all only by superseding the sovereignty of the people and setting aside the Constitution; for this country, like the world in Alexander’s day, “does not admit of two suns or two sovereigns.” Shall the sovereignty remain in the people? or shall it be transferred from the many to a few—to Congress, then to a clique, to a triumvirate, and finally to an emperor? This is no idle question. It is one to which the American people must give an answer.AMS April 19, 1900, page 242.2

    “Archbishop Ireland for Sunday Enforcement” American Sentinel 15, 16, p. 242.


    THE following from this noted Catholic prelate is quoted in “Lord’s Day Papers,” a monthly publication issued by the Wisconsin Sabbath Association:—AMS April 19, 1900, page 242.1

    “I have noticed with much regret that in movements of citizens to enforce the Sunday laws of the country, Catholics are not in large numbers among the foremost combatants. This may rise from some singular political ideas held by them, but no political ideas must prevail against such obligations as those binding us to the observance of the Sunday.”AMS April 19, 1900, page 242.2

    And the “obligations binding us to the observance of the Sunday,” as the archbishop and all Catholics see them, are that the day has been set apart by the Catholic Church as a religious day, resting upon precisely the same authority as do other feast and fast days of the Catholic Church, and no more binding than these in its obligation. This is why Archbishop Ireland wants the Sunday laws enforced upon Protestants in this country. Another noted Catholic writer has said that the observance of Sunday by Protestants is “an homage they pay in spite of themselves, to the Catholic Church;” and Archbishop Ireland, the Wisconsin Sabbath Association (professedly Protestant), and all others working for the enforcement of Sunday laws, want Protestants in the United States forced to pay homage “in spite of themselves, to the Catholic Church.”AMS April 19, 1900, page 242.3

    But we don’t want anything of this kind.AMS April 19, 1900, page 242.4

    “Archbishop Martinelli on the ‘Lord’s Day’” American Sentinel 15, 16, pp. 244, 245.


    IN the Catholic Mirror, Archbishop Martinelli, “Delegate Apostolic to the United States,” considers the question “Shall Sunday be ‘Lord’s Day?’” and states the doctrine by which the question is answered for Roman Catholics. According to his statements, as will be noticed, Protestants in applying the term “Lord’s day” to Sunday, have been following an example set by Rome from very early times. The archbishop says:—AMS April 19, 1900, page 244.1

    “The Latin races have used the word ‘Dominico,’ or day of the Lord, to designate the first day of the week since the reign of Pope Sylvester I, who ruled the church from A. D. 312 to 337.AMS April 19, 1900, page 244.2

    “From the beginning we find that all those people who derive their language from the Latin—the Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese, do not honor a heathen god in the specific title which they give to the day which we call holy, but they call it, as we do in ecclesiastical Latin—Lord’s day—‘Dominico’—in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, and ‘Dimanche’ in French.AMS April 19, 1900, page 244.3

    “The change which the Christian church made from the Sabbath to Sunday is too well known to need discussion. The early followers of Christ chose the first day of the week as the day of prayer rather than the last mainly to commemorate his glorious resurrection.AMS April 19, 1900, page 244.4

    “The teachings of the early fathers tell us that the Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples on Whit Sunday or Pentecost, and this constitutes another reason for the change. The observance of the Sunday or day of rest does not emanate from the natural law, which would indeed require us to worship the author of nature during parts of every day rather than during a whole day of every week.AMS April 19, 1900, page 244.5

    “There is no divine law which commands us to commemorate Sunday. The observance is purely of ecclesiastical origin, dating, however, from the time of the apostles. But as we have no trace of the Sabbath being observed among the Hebrews before the time of Moses we need not question the authority of the apostles to sanctify Sunday and set it apart as the day on which we honor the resurrection of the Son of God.AMS April 19, 1900, page 244.6

    “The Anglo-Saxon word Sunday is the name given to honor the sun, the divinity considered the most powerful in heathen mythology. The names of the other days of the week are chosen to honor some other divinity, as Monday, Luna, the moon; Tuesday, Mardi, Mars, the God of war; Wednesday, Woden, or Mercury; Thursday, or Thorday, the day which Jupiter was remembered; Friday was dedicated to Venus and Saturday to Saturn, the father of Jupiter and Neptune.AMS April 19, 1900, page 244.7

    “I believe that all Christian people should proclaim their belief in the Son of God by honoring his name in the day which they have chosen to consecrate to him. This great country is a Christian country, and by adopting the word ‘Lord’s day’ or ‘Sonday’ to honor the Word Incarnate, it will bear witness of the truth. In the Latin we used to say ‘Dies de Dominus,’ but this was considered too cumbersome for ordinary use, so the name has become simply Dominico.AMS April 19, 1900, page 244.8

    “There will be some means of simplifying the English word to meet the popular requirements. We follow the New Testament as our guide and we will find therein many reasons for calling the first day of the week the ‘Lord’s day.’ Thus, there is but one passage in the New Testament in which we find the first day mentioned specifically as the Lord’s day, namely, in the Apoc. 1:10. In Acts 20:7, we are told that St. Paul abode seven days at Troas, and that on the first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread. We have every reason, both from revelation and from tradition, to consecrate the first day of the week to the Son of God, and to name it for him is consistently and religiously to put in practise the discussion, and I hope that it will bear good fruits among the believers in Christ in this country.”AMS April 19, 1900, page 245.1

    Observe that the archbishop says: “This great country is a Christian country, and by adopting the word ‘Lord’s day’ or ‘Sonday’ to honor the Word Incarnate, it will bear witness of the truth.” By making Sunday the “Lord’s day,” then, this country will proclaim that it is “Christian.” But with the archbishop, the term “Christian” means Catholic and not Protestant. The country can proclaim itself “Christian” as a Catholic, but not as a Protestant, country; and it will do this by making Sunday the “Lord’s day.” This is perfectly in harmony with the Catholic claim that the Sabbath was changed by authority of the (Catholic) church, and that the change of the day stands as the sign of the church’s spiritual power and authority. It is perfectly true therefore that in making Sunday the “Lord’s day” this nation will proclaim itself “Christian” in the Roman Catholic sense, which will be simply to proclaim itself a Catholic nation.AMS April 19, 1900, page 245.2

    It is amusing to note the archbishop’s further statement that in “Apoc. 1:10,” “we find the first day of the week specifically mentioned as the Lord’s day.” The idea that the “Lord’s day” of Revelation 1:10 refers specifically or in any way to Sunday was specifically controverted in the Catholic Mirror some years ago by a prominent Catholic writer, and seems to be better “Protestant” doctrine than Catholic; but the archbishop’s statement well illustrates the assumption that goes with the attempt to find Bible proof for Sunday. The text in question says nothing whatever about the first day of the week. The conclusion that it does refer to the first day of the week is reached by “arguing in a circle.” The first day of the week is “proved” from Scripture, first, to be the Lord’s day; and then the term “Lord’s day” in Scripture is taken as proof that the text refers to the first day of the week. It is like two persons trying to hold each other up in the air: each depends on the other, but as neither has any support, they must fall to the ground together.AMS April 19, 1900, page 245.3

    “A ‘Remarkable Situation’” American Sentinel 15, 16, pp. 245, 246.


    THE New York Sun, in discussing the effect of the “higher criticism” upon the Protestant Church, points out that the Protestant bodies have in practise abandoned the ground of Scriptural infallibility upon which Protestantism stood when the separation was made from Rome; leaving Rome as the “sole champion” of the doctrine that the Bible contains no error. In this it sees, and quite truly, a “remarkable situation“:—AMS April 19, 1900, page 245.1

    “The pope, in his encyclical on Scripture in 1893, declared that ‘all the books which the church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost,’ and ‘that inspiration is not only incompatible with error, but also excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.’ The sacred and canonical books referred to include all the Bible as accepted by Protestants and accordingly the papal definition of the dogma of the Scripture attributes to the Protestant Bible entire and absolute infallibility. That is the question in controversy and the position of Rome as to it is unequivocal. So also is that of Protestantism, so far as concerns its formal and authoritative standards of faith; but while Roman Catholicism commands the layman Dr. Mivart to render obedience to its dogma under pain of excommunication and eternal damnation, Protestantism retains in its ministry and as teachers of theology many men whose teachings openly contradict its standards.AMS April 19, 1900, page 245.2

    “Does not this, then, leave the Roman Catholic Church the sole champion of Scriptural infallibility? Of course, a law amounts to nothing, becomes a mere dead letter, unless it is enforced. And is it not a very remarkable situation? Protestantism, the great distinguishing feature of which is reliance on the authority of the Bible above and without any other, surrenders the keeping of the infallibility of that authority to the church against which it protested and from which it separated in the sixteenth century, as a fountain of religious error.”AMS April 19, 1900, page 245.3

    It is of course only in theory that the church of Rome maintains the infallibility of Scripture. The doctrine has no practical importance for any true Catholic. For it is not the Scripture in itself that is the infallible guide of the Catholic into all truth, but the Scripture as interpreted by the church “fathers,” the councils, the popes, and Catholic theologians in general. The Scripture is divine and unerring, but the interpretation is human and fallible. Such an interpretation does not explain the Bible, but the Bible is made to support the interpretation. This opens wide the door to error in its worst form. And by this means error has come into the Catholic Church, through centuries of time, until to-day that church, while still maintaining the doctrine of Scriptural infallibility, has not use for the Bible at all, never encourages its reading in the most enlightened lands, and in Catholic countries prohibits it as a dangerous and heretical book, to be destroyed as an enemy of mankind.AMS April 19, 1900, page 245.4

    The “higher criticism” is only another form of this human interpretation which has destroyed the Bible for the millions of the Catholic Church. It is a scheme aiming at a like result for the Protestant churches, but suited to the conditions of present-day Protestantism. The papal interpretation of the Scriptures puts error in the place of truth without denying the inaccuracy of the Scripture itself; the “higher criticism” puts error in the place of truth by simply declaring that certain portions of the Scriptures themselves are error. The one is as human and as fallible as the other, and they represent only opposite sides of a scheme to defeat salvation by putting the human in the place of the divine.AMS April 19, 1900, page 246.1

    The Omniscient never designed that infallible words should be interpreted by a fallible authority. If he had he would not have provided the Holy Spirit as a guide into all truth. If any man lack wisdom, he is not to ask of the pope or the priest, the pastor or the higher critics, but “of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” If men will follow the counsel of the Omniscient and adhere to the plan he has provided for the spiritual enlightenment of mankind, they will find no difficulty in accepting the Scriptures as infallible, without the necessity of submitting their minds to the authority of a pope.AMS April 19, 1900, page 246.2

    “Back Page” American Sentinel 15, 16, p. 256.


    PROTESTANTS separated from Rome because they looked upon Rome as antichrist. Yet they continued to observe the same day as the Sabbath which Rome observed. But the Lord says of the Sabbath that it is his “sign” (Ezekiel 20:12, 20)—that those keeping it may know they are worshipers of the true God. Rome also sets forth the Sabbath—that of the Catholic Church—as the sign of her spiritual authority. The Sabbath thus holding this crucial place in the Christian system and in that which claims to be such, it should be evident to Protestants that if the church of Rome is antichrist, she must be wrong on the point of Sabbath observance, and the distinction between Protestants and Catholics should certainly be as marked on this point as on any point of religious belief and practise. Nor would they need to search the Scripture long to discover wherein this distinction should be made. Protestants were logically bound to repudiate Sunday observance when they separated from Rome; and by their failure to do so they are logically drawn toward reunion with the papal church.AMS April 19, 1900, page 256.1

    Larger font
    Smaller font