[Inset.] THE WEATHER VANE OF POPULAR SENTIMENT. THE promoters of the movement for religious legislation are energetically seeking to work up a popular sentiment which will give the movement the needed support. When they have secured this they will quote the saying, “The voice of the people is the voice of God.” But popular sentiment is only a weather vane; it is constantly changing; it is no safe guide to truth. The safe guide is not a weather vane, but a compass—the compass of eternal truth—the Word of God. When popular sentiment shall sanction legislation enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, it will still be true, as it always has been, that “the seventh day is the Sabbath;” and it will not be safe for anyone to observe any other than the Bible Sabbath, however unpopular it may be.AMS March 9, 1899, page 145.5

“Human Rights” American Sentinel 14, 10, pp. 146, 147.

ATJ

THERE is a phase of human rights which with the mighty men who made this nation took precedence even of the governmental principles of equality of civil right and government only by the consent of the governed. That is Religious Right. It has been this phase of human right, that more than the other, has made this nation what it has been in true greatness, and the light of the world.AMS March 9, 1899, page 146.1

With those noble men, those men of Providence, religious right was rightly set up first of all and above all. The right of a man to perform his duty to the Creator according to the dictates of his own conscience, absolutely untrammeled and unmolested—this was singled out, and discussed, and settled, first of all. The founders of our nation said that that must be settled first; for without religious liberty there could be no true civil liberty.AMS March 9, 1899, page 146.2

When they had settled that and spread it among the people of the then thirteen States, then they set about to frame a national government; and in that they established as a fundamental principle that the Government must have nothing to do with any man’s religion or irreligion; that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; that no religious test shall ever be required: and that the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.AMS March 9, 1899, page 146.3

These are the declaration of the men who made the Government,—Washington, Madison, Jefferson,—all the noble patriots who made the Government of that day; and who made it to stand forever as they made it. But to-day vast throngs and combines are being compacted together to draw this nation into the very thing which our fathers repudiated to draw the nation into an alliance with what somebody may choose to call Christian religion; to enforce by law somebody’s idea of what people ought to do with respect to religious observance; and the taxation of the people for the support of the church and religion. All these things are being persistently pushed upon the Government of the United States, against the Constitution, against the history that made the nation, against the plain fundamental principles established by those who made the nation.AMS March 9, 1899, page 146.4

When our fathers established the principles of this Government they announced them to the world, and actually fixed them in the great seal of the United States, so that when the great seal of this Government makes its impression upon anything it tells to the world that here is “A new order of things;” and that “God has favored the undertaking.” Every time the Secretary of State of the United States places that great seal upon paper, parchment, wax, or whatever it may be, it tells to the world that this nation was established to show to the world “a new order of things,” and that “God has favored the undertaking” of establishing a nation for that purpose.AMS March 9, 1899, page 146.5

When a nation publishes as its fundamental principle the separating the government from religion, leaving everybody free to believe and worship according to the dictates of his own conscience, uninterrupted by any person or power on earth—if that nation separates from that principle and takes the opposite course, setting to the nations the example of religious interference and religious persecution, then what is there left for the people of the other nations, who, so far as they have been enlightened at all, have been enlightened by this great principle? They must be swept back into the old order of things, there to perish. What then remains for this nation itself? What then remains for the world?AMS March 9, 1899, page 146.6

Our fathers in their day saw this danger and expressed it plainly. When they were asked to legislate in behalf of the Christian religion, they said, “What a melancholy departure is this bill!” If this principle is destroyed, what will the nations do who are looking to this nation for civil liberty and liberty of conscience? They will have to turn their steps away from us, and then where will they find a place on the earth? Where shall freedom find a refuge if that is done in this nation? That document was written by Madison in his own hand. He realized that legislation in behalf of religious observance was a melancholy departure, and was “the first step” in a course of things, of which the Inquisition is only the last step. Accordingly they declared that they would escape the consequences by denying the principle.AMS March 9, 1899, page 146.7

But this principle of our fathers with the others is being ignored and repudiated to-day; and it is time for all the people to begin to think on the question of human rights.AMS March 9, 1899, page 146.8

We have said that the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Romans are the basis of this study of human rights. In the fourteenth chapter we read: “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” This is spoken in a connection in which “the powers that be” are considered. How then does the Scripture stand as compared with that which is being carried on now all over this land? How does this Scripture comport with the widespread efforts to get the United States Government to legislate in behalf of the observance of a certain day. It matters not what any man’s opinion may be. It matters not what any person’s views may be of Sabbath observance,—whether of one day or none at all; there stands the Scripture with respect to the place which man shall occupy, and the place which the powers that be shall occupy with respect to the observance of a day. And none can disregard it except at the peril of the judgment of God. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?” All are to be left free. We are not to judge anybody, nor interfere with him, nor question him, as to whether he is subject to his master in the right way or not.AMS March 9, 1899, page 146.9

There stands the Scripture; how does it compare with the action of the churches, with the work of those who profess reverence for the Scriptures, all over this land, who are persistently urging upon the nation to establish by law the observance of a day?AMS March 9, 1899, page 147.1

Here is the Lord’s declaration of human right as to the observance of a day: “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord, he doth not regard it.” “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” If I observe the day to God, I really observe it; if I do not observe the day to the Lord, there can be no faith in it, and therefore I sin in observing it. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to judge his doubtful thoughts; to his own master he standeth or falleth.” Why should I compel you to observe the day which I observe? I cannot with this scripture in mind. Some observe one day, some observe another, and some do not observe any day religiously. It is true the vast majority observe one special day; but which of these three classes can secure or use law to enforce upon others the observance of the day which they regard, and still be Christians? Who can do it and recognize human rights as God has defined them and laid them down in his Word? Plainly none.AMS March 9, 1899, page 147.2

Again: Is it not written in the Scriptures, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, OR OF THE SABBATH DAYS?” Colossians 2:16. And yet all over this land there are “Sabbath laws” on the statute books; Sunday laws, Lord’s day laws, or whatever they may be called, and whosoever does not regard that day according to the law IS JUDGED BY MEN in the enforcement of the law. But the Scripture says, “Let NO MAN JUDGE YOU.” Then that scripture requires every person who receives the Scripture as the Word of God, to protest against every law that is proposed, or that ever could be proposed, in favor of the enforcement of the observance of any day for the Sabbath?AMS March 9, 1899, page 147.3

“LET NO MAN JUDGE YOU, in respect of Sabbath days,” saith the Lord. But when I go about to exert my influence with politicians, with legislators, with governors, and other authorities, to secure a law to compel my neighbor to recognize the day which I observe, and then when he does not observe the law which I have had enacted, he is judged BY MEN, is fined, and imprisoned; in that I do the very thing God has said that no man shall do. That Scripture then requires every Christian in the United States and everywhere else to everlastingly protest against anything by which any man can judge another for not observing a certain day, or any day at all, as a Sabbath.AMS March 9, 1899, page 147.4

This is not saying that the Lord does not require that the Sabbath shall be observed. God has commanded all to keep the Sabbath. He has told all what day is to be observed. He says distinctly, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” But the point is this,—it is God who has commanded it, and to Him alone men are responsible, and not to MAN. He alone, and not man, nor any set of men, is the judge.AMS March 9, 1899, page 147.5

A. T. J.

“We Are Not Going Into Politics” American Sentinel 14, 10, pp. 147, 148.

ATJ

THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is not going into politics. We make this statement for the benefit of some readers of this paper who see nothing beyond a question of politics in the new national policy of “expansion,” and therefore have thought that in opposing this policy the SENTINEL was going off into politics and away from the path of its appointed work.AMS March 9, 1899, page 147.1

The fact that this policy has been warmly discussed in the political arena, does not make of it a mere political question. The Sabbath question has been discussed in the political arena, and will be discussed there again; but the SENTINEL has spoken on that question for years without going into politics. The principles underlying this question, and the question of “expansion,” are broader than politics; and to contend for these principles it is not at all necessary to stand under any political banner.AMS March 9, 1899, page 147.2

The AMERICAN SENTINEL affirms that religious liberty is both Christian and Constitutional. It has affirmed this from the first. But in contending for religious liberty as a Constitutional thing the SENTINEL has never gone into politics. Nor is it, in opposing the “expansion” policy, doing anything else than contending for Constitutional liberty.AMS March 9, 1899, page 147.3

The AMERICAN SENTINEL has from the first contended for the principles of liberty embodied in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In the enactment and enforcement of religious laws these principles of liberty have been denied and set aside, and the SENTINEL has opposed such laws as being contrary to the Constitution and the principles of free government. In the policy of imperialism these principles are no less truly set aside; and the SENTINEL cannot contend for them without opposing that policy.AMS March 9, 1899, page 147.4

“It doesn’t make any particular difference to us”—so say some readers of the SENTINEL—“whether the United States annexed the Philippine Islands or not.” We ask all such whether it makes any difference to them if the United States, in annexing those islands, repudiates those foundation principles of government under which they have enjoyed civil and religious liberty hitherto, and which alone promise them that liberty for the future.AMS March 9, 1899, page 147.5

When those principles of republicanism shall have been repudiated—it matters not in what way—republican government in the United States will be at an end, and nothing in American government will be left to which appeal can be made against civil or religious oppression.AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.1

The policy of imperialism involves a complete repudiation of the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Imperialism says not “the consent of the governed,” but “the consent of some of the governed.” That doctrine is as true in one part of the earth as in another; it is as true in the United States as in the Philippine Islands. If it is practiced in the one place, it must also prevail in the other.AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.2

When some years ago a tide of religious persecution arose in this country, through the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws, a coming crisis was betokened in American government. That was a startling thing, and the AMERICAN SENTINEL was established to endeavor to prepare the people to meet the issue. There was a movement which, if it continued, would finally involve a national repudiation of those principles of free government under which the people of this country had enjoyed civil and religious liberty. But even more startling is it when now, within a single year, that national repudiation of those principles has all but come. We now know, as we did not before, to what extent the nation has drifted away from the principles of freedom toward those of despotism, and how near we are to the complete fulfillment of what has been predicted of it.AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.3

We had thought that every reader of the SENTINEL understood that it was the mission of the SENTINEL to contend for these principles, and to warn against the consequences of repudiating them. We are surprised therefore to find there are any readers of the SENTINEL who, when the principle of government by the consent of the governed is directly repudiated, do not see that the SENTINEL ought to say anything about it. We can only conclude that, as concerns their own interests and the interests of others in the issues before them, such persons are asleep.AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.4

But “Not it is high time to awake out of sleep.” Romans 13:11.AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.5

“Pope Leo’s Denial” American Sentinel 14, 10, pp. 148, 149.

ATJ

“THE Roman Catholic Church of to-day is not what it was in the Dark Ages,” is a belief widely entertained, and a saying oft expressed—in actions if not in words—by modern Protestants. We are told that the Catholic Church has changed; has become liberal, etc. We are assured that even if this is not true of the Catholic Church in general, it must at least be true of that church in the United States.AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.1

We call the attention of these Protestants and all others to the fact that all this is now expressly denied by Pope Leo himself.AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.2

The pope has written a letter to Cardinal Gibbons on “Americanism.” This letter was called forth by a book written by Rev. Walter Elliott, of the “Paulist Fathers,” giving an account of the life and teachings of “Father” Isaac Hecker, the founder of the Paulist order. “Father” Hecker was the leading exponent of views to which in general the term “Americanism” came to be applied. Of these the pope’s letter says:—AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.3

“The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas, if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the church proposes are recalled to mind.”AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.4

The letter then goes on to say of “Americanism” that—AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.5

“If by this name are to be understood certain endowments of mind which belong to the American people, just as other characteristics belong to various other nations, and if, moreover, by it is designated your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed, there is no reason to take exception to the name. But if this is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world.”AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.6

The Catholic “Church in America” is not “different from what it is in the rest of the world”—in Ecuador, Peru, or Spain, for example. “Liberal” Protestants mark that.AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.7

And this is not all; the pontiff takes equal care to assert in his letter that the church in this age is not different from what it was in former ages. He says:—AMS March 9, 1899, page 148.8

“We, indeed, have no thought of rejecting everything that modern industry and study has produced; so far from it that we welcome to the patrimony of truth and to an ever-widening scope of public well-being whatsoever helps toward the progress of learning and virtue. Yet all this, to be of any solid benefit, nay, to have a real existence and growth, can only be on the condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the church.”AMS March 9, 1899, page 149.1

All liberality, progress, and enlightenment in the Catholic Church “can only be on condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the church.” And what is this “wisdom” and “authority”?—It is that of the “fathers” and the church councils, to the writings and decisions of which the letter makes frequent reference. This is the standard by which what is modern must be measured and judged.AMS March 9, 1899, page 149.2

A thing may be called liberal, but it must be in harmony with the teachings it is to be rejected. And as the writings of the “fathers” and the decisions of the councils were in existence back in the days when Rome ruled the world and persecuted dissenters to the death—as these very “authorities” and this very “wisdom” were employed by the church in combatting [sic.] the Reformation—it is perfectly plain that all the modern liberality and progress there is in the church of Rome to-day is such as is in harmony—year, must be in harmony—with the spirit of opposition to every principle of the Reformation by fire and sword, by the dungeon, the rack, the stake, and every other means that Rome ever employed.AMS March 9, 1899, page 149.3

And this, by the word of Pope Leo XIII., is true of the Catholic Church in the United States, as everywhere else.AMS March 9, 1899, page 149.4

We wish all Protestants everywhere would mark this and not forget it. The Roman Catholic Church in America is “not different from what it is in the rest of the world;” and the church of to-day, in all the world, is not different from what it was in other ages of the world. This is the word of Pope Leo himself. Some Protestants have not been willing to believe us when we have asserted this; we are able now to give them the pope’s own word that it is so.AMS March 9, 1899, page 149.5

March 2, 1899

March 16, 1899