IN our study of the opinion of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee, as expressed in Judge Hammond’s dictum we have had to dwell upon the subject of the rights of the individual with respect to religion and religious observances enforced by law. We have found that in the whole dictum there is nowhere any recognition whatever of any such thing as the rights of the individual conscience; no right of the individual to choose for himself in religion or religious observances. Everything must be submitted to the dictates of, the majority, it matters not what that majority may declare or demand. In short the will of the majority is made absolute in all things. The State is made supreme and absolute, and the individual is completely swallowed up and absorbed therein. The majority alone have rights, and these are bestowed by the State.AMS December 10, 1891, page 377.1

This point was merely referred to in the quotation and discussion last week. The point is worthy of fuller examination, therefore we quote:—AMS December 10, 1891, page 377.2

The crime is in doing the thing forbidden by law, harmless though it be in itself. Therefore, all that part of the argument that it is not hurtful in itself to work on Sunday, apart from the religious sanctity of the day, is beside the question. It may be that the courts would hold that repeated repetitions of a violation of a law forbidding even a harmless thing, could be a nuisance as tending to a breach of the peace.... That is to say a nuisance might be predicated of an act harmless in itself, if the will of the majority had lawfully forbidden the act, and rebellion against that will would be the gravamen of the offense.AMS December 10, 1891, page 377.3

Now in view of this statement, please read carefully the following:—AMS December 10, 1891, page 377.4

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.AMS December 10, 1891, page 377.5

In declaring that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, there is declared not only the sovereignty of the people, but the entire capability of the people. And in declaring the equal and inalienable right of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is declared the entire capability of every man to enjoy life, and liberty, and to pursue happiness as he may think best, and he may choose for himself, so long as he interferes with no other man’s equal right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the only limit that ever can rightly be set to the exercise of this right, and this limit is set in the very declaration itself. Indeed the declaration, in itself, presupposes that men are men indeed, and that as such they are fully capable of deciding for themselves as to what is best for their happiness, and how they shall pursue it.AMS December 10, 1891, page 377.6

Therefore no government, no law, can ever of right forbid the doing of anything that is harmless in itself.AMS December 10, 1891, page 377.7

Governments are not formed to interfere with or to restrict inalienable rights; but to secure, to guard; to make firm the enjoyment thereof. These rights men already possess as men, by virtue of being men in society, and not by virtue of government. These rights were theirs before government was; they were their own in the essential meaning of the term. These rights men “do not hold,” says Stanley Matthews, “by any sub-infeudation, but by direct homage and allegiance to the owner and Lord of all,“—their Creator, who has endowed them with these rights.AMS December 10, 1891, page 377.8

It is not the prerogative because it is not the purpose of government to put any restriction, limitation, or qualification, upon these rights, but solely to secure them.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.1

For the rights of man, as man, must be understood in a sense that can admit of no single exception; for to allege an exception is the same thing as to deny the principle. We reject, therefore, with scorn, any profession of respect to the principle which, in fact, comes to us clogged and contradicted by a petition for an exception.... To profess the principle and then to plead for an exception, let the plea be what it may, is to deny the principle; and it is to utter a treason against humanity. The rights of man must everywhere, all the world over, be recognized and respected.—Isaac Taylor.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.2

The plea that the doing of a harmless thing, or even the repeated repetition of it, to an infinite extent, could ever tend to a breach of the peace is most puerile, and is as despotic as it is puerile. The idea is this: You are going quietly on your way doing something which is harmless in itself. But I see you. And I am of so splenetic, irritable, and despotic, a disposition, that out of sheer wickedness I attack you. A breach of the peace has been committed; but lo, instead of punishing me for the breach of the peace, a law must be enacted forbidding you ever again to do that harmless thing! And this, forsooth, because it tends to a breach of the peace! You must submit to be robbed of your inalienable right, and be compelled to surrender it a tribute to the overbearing demands of my tyrannical disposition. The innocent citizen must be made a slave, and the tyrannical meddler must be clothed with power. Such an idea is the very essence of despotism. In such a conception there is no recognition of any such thing as inalienable right. Such a government would be an unmitigated tyranny.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.3

Therefore, let it be forever repeated, that no law can ever justly be made forbidding the doing of anything that is harmless in itself. Such a law is wrong and essentially tyrannical in itself. Such a law is—not simply an utterance but—an enactment of a treason against humanity. And it is no less so when formulated by judicial or parliamentary legislation, than by the arbitrary decree of a despot. Such ideas of law and government have no place under the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.4

The jurisdiction of the Government is both derivative and limited. It is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments; more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free government required not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them he suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by any authority derived from them, and are slaves.—James Madison.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.5

The truth and the sum of this whole discussion is that the views propounded in the dictum of Judge Hammond in the King case, are all the way from one hundred to nineteen hundred years behind the times; they are as though history had never been written; they are a parody upon progress; a travesty upon justice, and are subversive of every principle of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution—they would sweep away every right either civil or religious that is therein declared or secured, and would again establish the same old despotism both civil and religious which cursed the world for seventeen hundred years, and against which the Declaration and the Constitution are, and were intended to be, an everlasting protest.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.6

A. T. J.

“The Kingdom of Christ” The American Sentinel 6, 48, pp. 378, 379.

ATJ

That the “one undying enthusiasm” of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and of the National Reformers generally, namely, “that Christ shall be this world’s king,” in the sense of ruling over the world, or any part of it, in its present condition, is opposed to the plain teaching of the Scriptures of truth, will appear from an examination of a few texts bearing upon the subject.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.1

Christianity was not established as a national system. Its redeemed will be “of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” (Revelation 7:9), but no nation in the aggregate will ever be saved. Even Israel, a nation ruled directly by the Lord under inspired leaders and teachers, never developed a generation of sincere believers. In establishing the gospel, James said that God “did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name.” Acts 15:14. It was necessary to have a separate people, with its priesthood and genealogies, both to represent in types the work of Christ, and to identify him as the seed of Abraham and the son of David, in fulfillment of the promises and the prophecies. But that necessity no longer exists, and therefore Christ “hath broken down the middle wall of partition,” (Ephesians 2:14), putting no difference between Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:9), ordaining that “in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Acts 10:35. The gospel of Christ is a gospel of faith—of personal piety. And the work of faith is a work of preparation for admittance to the kingdom of Christ; as Peter says “to them that have obtained like precious faith with us,” that if they add to their faith the Christian graces, they shall never fall, “for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” See 2 Peter 1:1-11. It is a denial of every principle of the gospel to talk of “Christ coming into his kingdom in the United States” by means of a popular vote or a constitutional amendment.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.2

But many seem to entirely misapprehend the present position and work of the Saviour, and the nature of the authority which he now possesses by the gift of the Father. It is a fact plainly taught in the Scriptures that the Father, at different times, confers authority of an entirely different nature upon his Son. Christ himself makes an announcement of this fact when he speaks of his occupying two thrones at different times, and for different objects. We refer to Revelation 3:21, where Jesus testifies thus to John: “to him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” The differences of these thrones, and of the objects of Christ’s occupying them, we will notice.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.3

Of the Father’s throne we say:—AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.4

1. It is the throne of the dominion of the whole universe. “God, the Judge of all,” sits upon it, and before it must come the actions of all the subjects of the Creator, and from it must go forth the decisions which concerns the eternal destinies of his creatures.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.5

2. That throne is in Heaven above. It is not, and never was, upon this earth.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.6

3. Upon that throne Christ sits as a priest—a mediator or intercessor for our race. In this he fulfills the type of Melchisedec, who was “king of Salem, and priest of the Most High God.” Hebrews 8:1 says: “We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the Heavens.” See Paul’s argument in chapters 5 to 9. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedec, because his priesthood is on a throne—the throne of his Father in Heaven. In this it differs from the priesthood of Aaron. And only in this sense is he a king at the present time—a priest-king. All his present rule and authority is in harmony with his office and character of a mediator or advocate. It is not the authority of an executive, or of one who punishes sinners. His authority in that respect is in the future.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.7

4. His occupancy of that throne is limited in regard to time; his priestly kingdom he will deliver up; his advocacy or work of mediation will end. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.8

5. We have no genealogy of Melchisedec, and, accordingly, Christ has no predecessor or successor in his priesthood. He sprang from a tribe which could have no priesthood in Israel, and he alone is priest on the throne of his Father.AMS December 10, 1891, page 378.9

6. While sitting upon the throne of his Father in Heaven, he is expecting and waiting for a gift of power and authority of another nature. “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Psalm 110:1. “After he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.” Hebrews 10:12, 13. His Father puts his enemies under his feet, but not till his priestly reign on the throne of Heaven ends. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.1

Of his own throne we may say:—AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.2

1. It is the throne—not of his Father in Heaven, but—of his father David. “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.” Luke 1:32. “God had sworn with an oath to him [David], that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.” Acts 2:30.AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.3

2. The throne of David was not in Heaven. The first dominion or rule over Israel as a nation, was from Heaven, because their government was originally a theocracy. But the throne of David was in every respect distinct from the throne of universal power whereon Christ now sits.AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.4

3. It is counted Christ’s own throne, because he was born heir to it, and his genealogy from David had to be preserved in order that his claim to it might be recognized.AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.5

4. His reign upon this throne will never end. “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Luke 1:32, 33.AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.6

5. Jehovah promised to establish the throne and seed of David forever. “Also I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth.” Psalm 89:3, 4, 27. The Revision says: “The highest of the kings of the earth.” Therefore it was prophesied of Christ, David’s son, that, when the kingdom is given to him, “all people, nations, and languages should serve him.” Daniel 7:14.AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.7

6. David had no priesthood, and his son and heir can have no priesthood on his throne. As has been proved, the priesthood of Christ is on the throne of his Father in Heaven. Hence his reign upon the throne of David is not a priestly reign. When he is given power over the nations, according to the promise of the Father, the fulfillment of which he has yet in expectation, he will no longer be a mediator or Saviour of sinners.AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.8

The points of difference between the two reigns of Christ, and of the two thrones upon which he reigns, are plainly brought to view in the Scriptures. It is only by confounding the circumstances of the two reigns, and misapplying the Scriptures in reference thereto, that the “National Reformers” make their positions appear somewhat plausible.AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.9

It must be remembered that “his enemies are put under his feet.” When the nations are subdued under him, they are his enemies still. And what will he do with them when they are given to him? The second psalm answers this question: “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.” And with this agree all the prophecies. Thus in Daniel 2, the kingdom of Christ is represented—not as converting the nations and incorporating them into itself, but—as breaking in pieces and destroying them. They are not brought into subjection to a mild sway of gospel peace; for there is no gospel grace offered to sinners after Christ ends his priesthood and receives his power over the nations. The kingdoms of earth will be dashed in pieces, broken, destroyed; they become as the chaff of the summer threshing floors, driven away by the wind, so that “no place is found for them.” To represent all this as the conversion of the nations, and their adopting the gospel of the kingdom as their “national religion” is to greatly pervert the Scriptures. It is crying “peace and safety” when destruction is impending. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3.AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.10

Jesus said the saints will be rewarded at the resurrection of the just. Luke 14:14. The resurrection of the just takes place when Christ himself returns to the earth. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. At the coming of Christ, the saints inherit, or enter into and possess, the kingdom. Matthew 25:31-34. And they can not inherit it before the resurrection; for Paul says “that flesh and blood [man in a mortal state] can not inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” 1 Corinthians 15:50. Christ’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, which can not be inherited by dying people; they must first be immortalized by the resurrection or a translation. God hath “chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him.” James 2:5. They who are rich in faith, and love God, are now heirs of the kingdom, and they will inherit it when Jesus comes and redeems them from the bondage of corruption. See Romans 8:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:4.AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.11

This brief view will suffice to show the errors of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and other National Reformers, in their application of the prophecies. They propose to set up the kingdom by a majority vote; but God will in his wrath destroy the majority and give the kingdom to a “little flock.”AMS December 10, 1891, page 379.12

December 3, 1891

December 17, 1891