The American Sentinel 10
March 14, 1895
“Beaten at Its Own Game” American Sentinel 10, 11, pp. 81, 82.
THE Christian Statesman is badly frightened at the aggressions of Romanism. But who is the Christian Statesman? AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.1
The Christian Statesman is, and has been for more than twenty years, the mouth-piece of the National Reform Association, an organization that has persistently denounced the American idea of separation of Church and State as “political atheism.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.2
It is the mouth-piece of the organization that has demanded an amendment to the Constitution definitely declaring that this is a Christian nation, but leaving the question as to who are the Christians, to be settled by later enactments and decisions. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.3
The Christian Statesman and this association were the agencies which organized and led the forces which browbeat Congress into legislating on the question of which day is the Sabbath. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.4
The AMERICAN SENTINEL commenced its career by exposing the wickedness of the movement advocated by the Christian Statesman. The SENTINEL pointed out that the principles advocated by the Statesman were essentially papal, and that the papacy would build on the foundation which was being laid by the Statesman and its constantly augmenting forces. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.5
But instead of listening to our warning, the Statesman made overtures to the Roman Catholics in the following words:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.6
Whenever they [the Roman Catholics] are willing to coöperate in resisting the progress of political atheism, we will gladly join hands with them. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.7
Papists were appealed to to help resist the progress of “political atheism” by securing from Congress a law recognizing Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. In the meantime the Supreme Court decided that “this is a Christian nation.” Armed with this remarkable decision, these Romanizing Protestants redoubled their exertions. Roman Catholic prelates were appealed to for assistance. They responded and the conspiracy was successful. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.8
A stock argument of these compromising Protestants in their demand for national legislation enforcing Sunday observance was to point to the decisions of courts that Christianity is a part of the common law, to State Sunday laws, to national and State Thanksgiving proclamations, and to the employment of chaplains by national and State governments. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.9
The AMERICAN SENTINEL declared that all these things were violations of the spirit of the Constitution, and that, instead of demanding more legislation on the strength of these violations of the spirit of the Constitution, all these vestiges of the State-church polity of Europe should be abolished to harmonize with the Constitution. We declared that popular Protestantism in clinging to these vestiges of papal policy was nursing in its bosom the viper that would yet be used by the papacy to sting to death the principle of American liberty, and through America, the liberties of the world. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.10
And now we see our predictions being literally fulfilled. We see Rome building on the platform so blindly laid and upheld by the Christian Statesman and its allies. Pope Leo XIII., the shrewdest political diplomat in the world, seeing that the time had come to strike a decisive blow at American liberty now so sorely wounded in the house of its friends, addressed an encyclical to the American Government and people, through the American bishops, condemning the American idea of separation of Church and State. Here is a part of it:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.11
The church among you, unopposed by the Constitution and Government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance; yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the church: or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.... She [the Catholic Church] would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of public authority. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.12
A few compromised Protestants startled by this bold bid for the patronage of American law and public authority which they themselves were earnestly laboring to obtain, ventured to criticise the pope’s encyclical. But Rome expected this, and was ready for it. And what was her answer? She simply pointed to the platform which silly Protestants had themselves laid for her to build on. The following is the reply which, in substance, has appeared in nearly every Roman Catholic newspaper in the United States. Immediately upon the publication of the encyclical, the “Very Rev. A. F. Hewitt, D.D., Superior General of the Paulists,” and editor of the Catholic World, wrote this reply and had it telegraphed to the leading papers of the country:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.13
Our greatest jurists have declared that this is a Christian country. The Sunday is recognized and its observance protected by law. Thanksgiving and fast days are proclaimed by authority. Chaplains are appoint in legislatures, in the army and navy. Colleges, under the control of ecclesiastics, and institutes of charity have been liberally aided, and among these have been some institutions under the direction of Catholic authorities. There is nothing in this policy which is un-American. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.14
In this manner does Rome defend its claim to the favor of the laws and the patronage of public authority. And all those who have worked and are working for Sunday laws with which to force universal obedience to their misinterpretation of the fourth commandment, and are pointing to governmental chaplains, Thanksgiving proclamations, and court decisions that this is a Christian nation, as arguments in support of their claims,—all such now stand stultified in the presence of Romish aggressions. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.15
But our readers will be interested in reading the pitiable wail of the Christian Statesman as it sees the papacy building on its foundation. And let it be remembered while the following is perused, that it is from the same pen and the same paper that in 1884 wrote and published the before-quoted petition to Roman Catholics, asking that they “coöperate in resisting the progress of political atheism;” which being interpreted, was a request for Roman Catholic aid in breaking down the principle of separation of Church and State embodied in what they termed “that infidel document,“—the United States Constitution. We quote from the Christian Statesman, of Feb. 23, 1895:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.16
Romanism, with keen appreciation of the vast issues at stake, and with far-reaching calculations as to the future, is employing every possible means to gain and hold the commanding and decisive position when the crisis which is sure to come in our national life, shall be upon us. She is pouring in her millions of devotees from other lands to wield the sovereign ballot here. She is commanding them by her highest authority to take an active interest in political affairs, and to subordinate all political conduct to the advancement of the Roman Catholic Church. She is determined to control the common school system of our country, or to break it up and substitute for it her own parochial schools in which her rapidly-multiplying youth shall be molded to her own liking, and prepared to do without question her own authoritative bidding. Not satisfied with holding as at present the balance of power as between the two great political parties, and receiving rich pay first from one and then from the other of these parties for her united vote that is sure to turn the tide of victory whichever way it goes, she aspires to positive and absolute direct control of our national life. And the ratio of the numerical increase of her youth will with absolute certainty bring this about, if her youth are not by the maintenance of our common schools molded into true and loyal American citizens. And this education of her own youth is what Rome is now with all her energies setting herself to accomplish. AMS March 14, 1895, page 81.17
In the final issue Romanism claims to decide all moral questions, and her “infallible” interpretation of moral law must be imposed upon the schools and upon the State itself. This is the Roman or papal principle: and its inexorable logic is the Inquisition for all who do not submit. This is the principle that now threatens the nations’ right to interpret God’s moral law for itself. The two systems are in their death-grapple these closing years of the nineteenth century. Our nation was born in the providence of God a Protestant nation, with the Bible as its ultimate law, and the nation itself the responsible interpreter of that law in its own proper sphere of action. Shall it continue such a nation? Shall it retain the Bible to its schools, and train its youth,—and al its youth,—in whom the nation’s future is bound up, to know God’s Word and the duties of citizenship as taught in that Word? Shall our legislators and judges and executive officers and our people at large go to God’s moral law or to the Roman Pontiff to know what are the rights and duties of the nation and of her citizens and subjects? This is the conflict on one side of the great moral and political battlefield on which the contending forces in our national life are already engaged. Do we know our danger? Are we on our guard? To be aware of the danger in time is half the battle won. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.1
“The two systems” that “are in their death-grapple these closing years of the nineteenth century” are here presented as the infallibility of the pope and the infallibility of the “nation.” The papal system places the infallibility in the pope. The Christian Statesman professedly places the infallibility in “our legislators and judges and executive officers and our people at large.” Both systems demand an infallible interpretation of the moral law which shall be binding on all. But who shall interpret the moral law for these legislators and judges? Is each man to be left to his own private interpretation? No, indeed. The Christian Statesman and its allies will not permit this. One case will suffice to illustrate this truth. The “moral law” says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” The Christian Statesman “interprets” this moral law to mean “the first day is the Sabbath,” and then hands this interpretation to legislators and judges with the demand that it be accepted and acted upon under penalty of political death. This the Christian Statesman and its allies have done and are doing, thus actually claiming for themselves the infallibility they professedly claim for the nation. The death struggle now going on in this nation is therefore between the “infallibility” of the pope and the infallibility of popish-Protestant preachers,—between the “beast and his image.” The true child of God will refuse to bow to the dictates of either. He will “go to God’s moral law” to ascertain his duty, and will refuse to worship, by his obedience to, either the Roman Pontiff or his American image. “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 14:9-12. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.2
“Crossing the Abyss” American Sentinel 10, 11, p. 82.
THE New York Press, in its issue of February 25, contained the following significant news item:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.1
OVATION TO A BISHOP
First Time a Catholic Clergyman Has Addressed the Y. M. C. A.
COLUMBUS, OHIO, Feb. 24.—Right Rev. John A. Watterson, bishop of the Columbus diocese, addressed a big meeting of the Y.M.C.A. to-day. As many persons as gained admission to the hall were turned away. This was the first time in its history that a Catholic clergyman had addressed a meeting under the auspices of the Y.M.C.A. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.2
The bishop was introduced by General Secretary W. T. Perkins. He spoke for an hour and a half on “Christian Citizenship,” the audience being held in rapt attention and frequently breaking into applause. When the bishop advanced to the platform the applause amounted to an ovation. He thanked the audience for its generous welcome. It showed him, he said, that it did not regard him as a bull in a china shop, and especially a papal bull in the beautiful china shop of the Y.M.C.A. The climax of his address was reached in the following passage:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.3
“While I am uncompromising in the matters of my faith, and inflexible in those lines of conduct which depend on the principle of faith, and while I would deserve the contempt and scorn of every right-minded man if I were recreant to my conscience in those things which I hold as truths, yet I know of no doctrine of the Catholic Church which prohibits or prevents me from working for the good of my fellowmen, no doctrine which interferes with my allegiance to the government and laws of my country. On the contrary, I know that the whole teaching and the whole spirit of my religion require me to be true to my country and its government, and to promote its honor by the faithful discharge of all the duties of American citizenship. All of you would know it, too, if you knew my religion as well as I do.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.4
Nothing is more patent to the careful observer than that popular Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are bridging the gulf made by the Reformation. Another fact just as evident is that this is being accomplished by compromises on the part of Protestants, while Rome is “inflexible” in holding the soul-destroying doctrines condemned by the Reformation, and in denouncing the American principle of separation of Church and State. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.5
“Seventh-day Adventists and Separation of Church and State” American Sentinel 10, 11, p. 82.
IT is now well known that Seventh-day Adventists are strongly opposed to Sunday laws, but it is not generally known that this opposition to religious legislation is consistently adhered to in all its bearings. It is not generally known that this denomination is the first and only denomination in the United States that has officially declared in favor of the taxation of all church property. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.1
March 5, 1893, the following resolutions were adopted by their General Conference held at Battle Creek, Mich.:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.2
WHEREAS, In view of the separation which we believe should exist between the Church and the State, it is inconsistent for the Church to receive from the State pecuniary gifts, favors, or exemptions, therefore, AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.3
Resolved, That we repudiate the doctrine that church or other ecclesiastical property should be exempt from taxation, and further, AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.4
Resolved, That we decidedly protest against any such exemption, and favor the repeal of such legislation as grants this exemption. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.5
There are some who might charge insincerity on the ground that there is no danger that church property will ever be taxed and therefore it cost the denomination no sacrifice to thus express its loyalty to principle. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.6
However, the denomination at its last General Conference, which closed March 4th, passed a resolution that leaves no ground to doubt its sincerity. Its missionaries reported from Mashonaland, in South Africa, that the South African Land Company, chartered by the British Government with powers similar to the famous British East India Company, offered to donate liberal tracts of land to representative missionaries for missionary purposes, and that a fine tract of land, numbering twelve thousand acres, was placed at their disposal. The matter was brought before the General Conference and disposed of with the following resolution which was passed unanimously, with the understanding that funds would be supplied to the missionaries with which to purchase all needed land for a mission site:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.7
Resolved, That we ought not as a denomination either to seek or accept from any civil government, supreme, local, or otherwise, any gift, or grant either of land, money, or other thing of value. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.8
It is evident from this that Seventh-day Adventists are sincere in their belief in the complete separation of Church and State. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.9
“Struggling for Place” American Sentinel 10, 11, p. 82.
THE Wesleyan Christian Advocate (Atlanta, Ga.), of January 30, contains the following editorial:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.1
Standing by His Colors
It seems that on State occasions Canada has places of honor for the dignitaries of the Catholic Church, but does not recognize Methodists, Presbyterians and others, though they represent a majority of the people there. Dr. Carman, the superintendent of Canada Methodism, declined to attend the funeral of Sir John Thompson, because of this discrimination. In explanation of his course, he says:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.2
“Personal feelings are not here to be considered for a moment. For myself I might well enough have accepted any place; but for the Methodist Church I must have the ground and rank to which the Methodist Church is entitled, and to which for herself and for others that church has asserted that claim. It is an affair of great political significance—of immense civil, social and ecclesiastical significance. It is an affair of human rights, of the resistance of ancient wrongs, of the assertion and maintenance of freedom and proper self-respect, of rejection of pompous and absurd pretensions, and of teaching other people their place and duty. The men that will submit to tyranny are cowards, and proclaim themselves base tyrants were the places changed. Possibly the time has come to set these wrong matters right, and a kind providence may have given us a good occasion.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.3
This clerical struggle for “place” now raging in the United States and Canada among Protestants, brings to mind the history of the struggle of the papal bishop for place in the early centuries of Christianity. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.4
We recommend Dr. Carman and all clergymen, both in Canada and the United States, to abandon their struggle for first “place” at the side of the State and hasten to press close to the side of the Lord Jesus Christ. They can all have first place there, for he is “no respecter of persons.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.5
“Looking Backward” American Sentinel 10, 11, p. 82.
UNDER the title “Can Sunday Laws be Enforced,” Rev. J. J. M’Carrell in the Christian Statesman of February 2, furnishes the following encouragement to modern “Blue Law” advocates:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.1
Two hundred years ago if anyone in Boston or New England in general had any doubt as to the possibility of enforcing such laws, he need only attempt to go out of town, or come into town, or walk out for an airing, or stand talking to his neighbor, on Sunday, or keep his shop open after sundown Saturday. He would be soundly and probably sorely convinced that such a thing is possible AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.2
The compulsory Sunday observance champion of to-day looks back upon the palmy days of the New England theocracy with longing heart and wishful eye. AMS March 14, 1895, page 82.3
“Conflicting Views” American Sentinel 10, 11, p. 83.
THE following editorials are among the most recent contributions to the discussion of the question, are laws enforcing Sunday observance of the nature of the religious legislation of a State-church polity, or are they purely civil enactments for the protection of the man and not the day:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.1
| THE “INDEPENDENT,” FEBRUARY 21. | THE “CHRISTIAN STATESMAN,” FEBRUARY 2. |
| We are rather severely taken to task by the Sabbath Outlook, a Seventhday Baptist publication, for an editorial concerning the prosecution and imprisonment in Maryland and Tennessee of seventhday keepers for violating Sunday laws. It says we undertake a “lame apology” for the wrongs done, and that, when we say that Sunday laws are not enforced by the courts because of the divine sanction or because of the religious aspects of the day, we are guilty of an “evasion of facts.” Let us see, Dr. Spear, in his “Religion and the State,” shows that the Christian Sabbath is not an institution of the Federal Government, and is wholly unmentioned in any of the State constitutions except that of Vermont; that it is treated in the laws as a day of cessation from labor, and not as a religious institution; and that the State courts have taken an entirely secular view of it. Thus the Supreme Court of New York held that it is a “civil and political institution,” resting on the same foundations as the laws against gambling, lotteries, selling intoxicants on election days, etc.; that of Pennsylvania that it is only a “civil regulation;” that of South Carolina that Sunday is a “mere day of rest,” with which religion has nothing more to do than with a statute which should make July 4th or January 8th a rest day; that of Alabama that Sunday legislation is simply an exercise of the police power, and “cannot be justified on the ground that such abstinence [from labor] is enjoined by the Christians religion;” and that of Ohio that the validity of such legislation is “neither strengthened nor weakened by the fact that the day of rest it enjoins is the Sabbath day.” Other citations are given by Dr. Spear; and he reaches the conclusion that the whole theory of Sabbath legislation, as expounded by the courts, is that it rests not upon divine sanction or religious reasons, but the desirability of securing a regular rest-day, and of protecting those who religiously observe it from annoyance and disturbance. | It will be noticed that in the clear and strong convention address given in this issue, the author uses the common and officially accepted legal phrase “Sunday laws.” This he does, evidently, in order to have the term throughout the address the same as that made use of in our courts. In the same way the author occasionally speaks of “a civil Sunday.” We refer to this matter for the purpose of urging the most careful distinction in the use of the words “Sabbath” and “Sunday.” The latter word is correctly used only in relation to the first day of the week or anything connected with that day when the idea of the Sabbath as an institution for rest and worship is entirely wanting. A Sunday newspaper is a paper published on the first day of the week in violation of the Sabbath. A Sunday-school is properly a school on the first day of the week without any closer relation to the rest and worship of the Sabbath than a Monday school might have. A Sabbath-school is one on the first day of the week for the promotion of what is in support of the rest and worship of the Sabbath. So a law for the purpose of preventing Sabbath desecration if property a Sabbath law. A Sunday law is one like that of Louisiana which simply places the first day of the week on a level with such legal holidays as the 4th of July and Christmas. It contains no implication of the sacredness of a day of rest and worship, or of the institution of the Sabbath. But in our States generally this institution of a rest day and a day for worship is most clearly kept in view in the laws concerning the first day of the week. The proper designation of these laws, therefore, is Sabbath laws, and not Sunday laws. And we are sure that it would lead to a better regard for these laws as based on the divine law itself, if they were always designated in our statute books and in our courts as well as in general and popular usage by their right name. |
The Independent is still clinging to the erroneous and illogical idea that Sunday laws are not religious legislation. It is driven to this defense because it is unwilling to adopt the State-church theory in which Sunday laws were born, and at the same time unwilling to abandon its defense of such laws. We have published the editorial from the Christian Statesman to show that there is a wide disagreement among Sunday-law advocates on the point of the nature of these laws. The Christian Statesman, the acknowledged leader in the crusade for the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws, boldly avers that such laws are religious laws, that the only consistent basis for such laws is the divine command of God, and all attempts to place these laws on a civil basis is itself “political atheism.” Laying aside the question of facts, the opinion of the Christian Statesman is more important than that of the Independent, because the Statesman is the recognized champion of the Sunday-law movement in the United States, and devotes more space to the discussion of the question in a single issue than the Independent does in a month. AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.2
But as regards facts: The Statesman is certainly correct in its claims that Sunday laws are religious enactments. It traces Sunday laws through the State-church period of colonial days to the English State-church enactment of Charles II., and from there back to Constantine’s famous law. No one can read the law of Charles II. in connection with the Sunday laws of the several States and deny that they are modified copies of it. These facts the Independent will not attempt to deny. So much for the origin. AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.3
Neither will the Independent deny that the demand for them comes from the Church. Rev. W. F. Crafts, in his book the “Sabbath for Man,” says: “During nearly all our American history the churches have influenced the State to enact and improve Sabbath laws.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.4
The Independent attempts to hide behind the decision of courts that Sunday laws are devil regulations. It is true that most of the courts have taken this view, but although this is law it does not follow that it is fact. The Supreme Court of the United States once decided that the negro “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” The Independent, while admitting for the time being that this was law, would deny that it ever was a fact. Sunday laws are religious in origin, nature, and object, and when courts can make sin righteousness they can make Sunday laws religious. AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.5
But the courts are not a unit in placing Sunday laws on a purely civil basis. The United States Circuit Court, in its decision of the famous King case, denominated as “disingenuous” the “argument of his [King]s] adversary sects that it is the economic value of the day of rest and not its religious character which they would preserve by civil law.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.6
Again, the Supreme Court of California, ex parte Newman, reviews the decision of certain courts that Sunday laws are mere civil regulations, in the following forcible language:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.7
These decisions are based upon the ground that the statutes requiring the observance of the Christian Sabbath established merely a civil rule, and make no discrimination or preference in favor of any religion. By an examination of these cases, it will be seen that the position taken rests in mere assertion, and that not a single argument is adduced to prove that a preference in favor of the Christian religion is not given by the law. In the case in 8 Barr, the court said: “It [the law] intermeddles not with the natural and indefeasible right of all men to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; it compels none to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent; it pretends not to control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and it establishes no preference for any religious establishment or mode of worship.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.8
This is the substance of the arguments to show that these laws establish no preference. The last clause in the extract asserts the proposition broadly; but it is surely no legitimate conclusion from what precedes it, and must be taken as the plainest example of petition principii. That which precedes it establishes that the law does not destroy religious toleration, but that is all. AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.9
Now, does our constitution, when it forbids discrimination or preference in religion, mean merely to guarantee toleration? For that, in effect, is all which the cases cited seem to award, as the right of a citizen. In a community composed of persons of various religious denominations, having different days of worship, each considering his own as sacred from secular employment, all being equally considered and protected under the Constitution, a law is passed which in effect recognizes the sacred character of one of these days, by compelling all others to abstain from secular employment, which is precisely one of the modes in which its observance is manifested and required by the creed of that sect to which it belongs as a Sabbath. Is not this a discrimination in favor of the one? Does it require more than an appeal to one’s common sense to decide that this is a preference? And when the Jew or seventh-day Christian complains of this, is it any answer to say, Your conscience is not constrained, you are not compelled to worship or to perform religious rites on that day, nor forbidden to keep holy the day which you esteem as a Sabbath? We think not, however high the authority which decides otherwise. AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.10
The truth is, however much it may be disguised, that this one day of rest is a purely religious idea. Derived from the Sabbatical institutions of the ancient Hebrew, it has been adopted into all the creeds of succeeding religious sects throughout the civilized world; and whether it be the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian, it is alike fixed in the affections of its followers beyond the power of eradication; and in most of the States of our confederacy, the aid of the law to enforce its observance has been given, under the pretense of a civil, municipal, or police regulation. AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.11
Once more, Chief Justice Rafin of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in the case of the State vs. Williams, thus honestly and candidly says:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.12
The truth is that it [Sunday labor] offends us, not so much because it disturbs us in practicing for ourselves the religious duties, or enjoying the salutary repose of recreation, of that day, as that it is, in itself, a breach of God’s law, and a violation of the party’s own religious duty. AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.13
The history of the “civil” claim for Sunday laws is thus briefly told in the history of other religious legislation by the Baptist historian, Robert Baird:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.14
The rulers of Massachusetts put the Quakers to death and banish “Antinomians” and “Anabaptists,” not because of their religious tenets, but because of their violation of civil laws. This is the justification they pleaded, and it was the best they could make. Miserable excuse! But just so it is; wherever there is such a union of Church and State, heresy and heretical practices are apt to become violations of the civil code, and are punished no longer as errors in religion, but infractions of the laws of the land. So the defenders of the Inquisition have always spoken and written in justification of that awful and most iniquitous tribunal.—Religion in America, p. 94. AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.15
It is true that a large majority of court decisions have embodied the “civil” view of Sunday laws, but these decisions have followed precedents long established and from which jurists have not dared to break away. These precedents were established under a terrible ecclesiastical pressure brought to bear upon the courts, which demanded the transference of a State-church measure from the church establishment of England to the disestablishment in America, and a “civil” reason for it. The United States Circuit Court decision, previously referred to, states the situation thus:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.16
The court, in cases like this, cannot ignore the existing customs and laws of the masses, nor their prejudices and passions even, to lift the individual out of the restraint surrounding him because of these customs and laws before the time has come when public opinion shall free all men in the measure desired. AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.17
Seventh-day Adventists bring no railing accusation against our courts. They charge no man with dishonest. The churches have demanded Sunday legislation of the legislators and sustaining decisions from judges. We are persuaded that there are judges who are as anxious to let the inoffensive seventh-day observers go free, as was Pilate to save the life of Jesus; but outside the court stands the Church as of old with threatening mien, pointing to the law and demanding their punishment under penalty of political death. “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.” John 19:11. AMS March 14, 1895, page 83.18
“Rome Never Demanded More” American Sentinel 10, 11, p. 84.
THE Christian Statesman, of February 16, publishes an address delivered by Dr. R. J. George, at a convention of compulsory Sunday-observance advocates, held recently at New Castle, Pa. The address, which, with others, the Statesman promises will soon appear in pamphlet form, is entitled, “The Duties of the States to the Church,” and is treated under eight heads. The reader may be inclined to doubt that it is possible for a minister outside the pale of Rome to take such positions, but each of the eight positions were boldly taken and soberly defended and heartily indorsed by the convention and by the leaders in the movement for the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws. The following positions are startling indeed, but they are the logical outcome of the first step,—a Sunday law:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.1
1. It is the duty of the State to recognize the independent authority of the Church. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.2
2. The State is to be subservient to the Church. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.3
3. The State should profess the true Christian religion. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.4
4. The State should require scriptural qualifications in her rulers. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.5
5. The State should restrain practices that are injurious to religion. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.6
6. The State should maintain a true standard of morals. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.7
7. The State should protect the Church. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.8
8. The State should support the Church by timely gifts. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.9
And now we ask, if this is not a faithful description of the “beast,” the papacy? And since it is not the “beast” that is here speaking but an apostate Romanizing Protestantism, it can be none other than the Apocalyptic “image to the beast.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.10
The Roman Catholic Church, in the darkest of the darkness of the Dark Ages, never demanded more from the State and never employed more in exterminating heretics than is here demanded. And this is the dominant sentiment of the present crusade for the enforcement of the Sunday-Sabbath, the “mark” or badge of the “beast,” on those who “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” (See Revelation 14:8-12.) AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.11
“Persecuting Colonel Ingersoll” American Sentinel 10, 11, p. 84.
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL does not believe the Bible, but on the contrary declares that he believes it his conscientious duty to lecture against it for the gate receipts minus expenses. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.1
This he has a right to do. And this right should be held sacred and defended by all, including those who believe the Bible to be the Word of God. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.2
However, this is not the view taken by certain ministers of Hoboken, N.J., who, led by one, Rev. H. T. Beatty, a Presbyterian, recently attempted to prevent Col. Ingersoll from delivering his lecture against the Bible in their city. There is on the statute books of the State the following law:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.3
If any person shall willfully blaspheme the holy name of God, by denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching his being or providence, or by contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or the Christian religion, or the holy Word of God (that is, the canonical scriptures contained in the books of the Old and New Testament), or by profane scoffing at or exposing them or any of them to contempt and ridicule, then every person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding $200 or imprisonment at hard labor, not exceeding twelve months, or both. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.4
The ministers of Hoboken invoked the old law against Col. Ingersoll, and tried to have the authorities use it to prevent the lecture. But the Corporation Council announced that Mr. Ingersoll could not be prevented from delivering his address, but that should he violate the law, he would be promptly arrested. The agitation of the matter procured for the Colonel an immense audience, among which were the prosecuting preachers and their police. Col. Ingersoll, by ingenuity, succeeded in delivering his address in such a way as to technically escape the law and disappoint the preachers. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.5
The SENTINEL, as our readers know, has not sympathy with Mr. Ingersoll’s attacks on the Bible, but we do demand for him the freedom of speech. The God of the Bible is well able to defend himself, and since he chooses to permit Mr. Ingersoll to express himself freely about the Bible, the preachers had better follow His example. And besides, who is to define what is blasphemy? Col. Ingersoll ridiculed the idea of an eternal burning hell in which sinners writhe in indescribable agony throughout the countless ages of eternity. Doubtless this would be regarded as blasphemy under the law, but if denying this dogma of the Church is regarded as blasphemy, then we would be regarded as blasphemous also, for we deny it, and deny that the Bible teaches it. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.6
The early Christians were regarded as blasphemous because they declared that the gods of the heathen were no gods. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.7
The State has no infallible tribunal by which to determine what is blasphemy, and is therefore not competent to pass upon the question. The preachers may decide for themselves, but let them not call upon the civil law to enforce their decision. We close with the remark that certain preachers, by their so-called higher criticism, are doing more to destroy faith in the Bible than are the lectures of Col. Ingersoll. AMS March 14, 1895, page 84.8
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 11, p. 88.
THERE is trouble in the Presbyterian Church. The church is divided on certain questions, into what is called the “minority” and “majority” divisions. The Evangelist represents the minority and the Presbyterian, the majority. We publish on page 87 of this issue an editorial criticism from the Evangelist of the methods which the Presbyterian employs to increase it circulation. Our comment is, “Babylon is fallen.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.1
ALL should read the article in this issue entitled, “The Failure of the Pulpit.” It is written by a Methodist and published in a leading Methodist Church paper, and is therefore the statement of one who knows whereof he speaks, and who speaks as a friend and not as an enemy of the Methodist Church. No one familiar with the sins of “the man of sin” and the manifest symptoms of those sins as delineated by prophecy and recorded in history, will fail to recognize in the facts stated in the article referred to, a perfect description of the papal apostasy. AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.2
ROMAN CATHOLIC and Protestant religious papers are just now engaged in a love feast. The occasion for this is the recent Roman Catholic demonstration in favor of Sunday closing, in which it was resolved to aid non-Catholics (Protestants) in preserving the sacredness of Sunday. The Protestant press was wonderfully pleased with this and published columns of editorial commendation and rejoicing. The Catholic papers copied these and renewed their loyalty to Sunday. These Roman Catholic editors must laugh in their sleeves at the way Protestants hug the papal Sabbath. AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.3
THE Monitor (Roman Catholic), in its issue of March 2, publishes a review of an article in the Amador Record advocating religious teaching in the public schools. The Monitor’s review which embodies some good points well stated against that colorless thing “non-sectarian Christianity,” contains the following reference to Seventh-day Adventists:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.4
If the public school goes into the business of teaching the ten commandments it will have to go into the business of explaining them. If they are all commandments, all are important and all must be inculcated. If so, how are we to get over the elementary question of the observance of the Sabbath? Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day, is one of those “plain, self-evident” truths of which the Amador Record speaks, yet who shall say which day of the week is to be observed as the day of rest? If the public school teachers decide that Sunday is the Lord’s day the Jews will have a right to complain. And not only Jews but the Seventh-day Adventists can object to this interpretation. In fact to these latter the observance of the first day of the week as the Sabbath is a mark of antichrist and the proof of the great apostasy. They will protest that this is sectarian teaching, and so they are experienced bands at protesting, the Amador Record and the public school teachers might soon learn that their trials and tribulations had only begun. AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.5
We are pleased to note that the Monitor recognizes that Seventh-day Adventists are “experienced hands at protesting.” We are glad that it recognizes that Protestantism is not yet dead. And right here we protest against the Monitor’s quoting the Sabbath commandment from the catechism instead of from the Bible. If it had quoted from the Bible instead of the catechism it would have experienced no difficulty in determining which day is the Sabbath. The catechism which reads, “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day,” is very indefinite and needs “explaining:” but the Bible which says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath,” is very definite and needs no “explaining.” And this very assumption of power on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to substitute its law for the law of God constitutes the “work of antichrist and the proof of the great apostasy.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.6
THE Western Watchman (Roman Catholic) speaks thus defiantly of the power of its church:— AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.7
The German Emperor applauded the statement made in the Reichstag the other day that the two practical dangers that now menaced the Fatherland were Socialism and Catholicism. If the church is an enemy then is she the greatest under the stars. Whatsoever she falls on shall be crushed to powder. AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.8
We surmise from the last sentence that the Watchman refers to “the stone which the builders rejected,” which “is become the head of the corner.” It is said of this stone, which is Christ (Ephesians 2:20), “Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Luke 20:18. If it is upon the authority of this text that the Watchman predicts the crushing of the German Empire by the Roman Catholic Church, it is terribly mistaken, for that stone is Christ. However, the fate of the Roman Catholic Church is symbolized by a stone. We refer to Revelation 18:21, which reads: “And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.” AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.9
“More Persecution in Tennessee” American Sentinel 10, 11, p. 88.
ONE of our editors, who is in attendance at the trials of the Seventh-day Adventists at Dayton, Tenn., who were charged with maintaining a nuisance by laboring on Sunday, telegraphs that there were ten defendants found guilty on seventeen separate charges, and fined two dollars and fifty cents and costs on each of the seventeen charges. AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.1
We have not yet learned the names of these ten victims of the Sunday-law crusade, but from previous correspondence we are able to state that one of them is Prof. G. W. Colcord, President of the Graysville Academy, a Seventh-day Adventist institution. Prof. Colcord is also an ordained minister of the denomination. It is quite likely that a large proportion of the seventeen convictions are against him, as he was charged with six offenses. AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.2
The telegram states that the judge suspended the fines, but that the costs must be paid by the convicted parties, or they will be committed to jail. AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.3
The telegram further states that three local lawyers volunteered to plead the cases gratis; also that the defendants have asked for a new trial and an arrest of judgment. AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.4
This is the largest number of Seventh-day Adventists convicted at one time, and does not bear out the prediction of some that these persecutions were only surface agitations on the on-flowing tide of liberty. Tennessee has been at this persecuting business a long time, and now, instead of showing signs of improving, is steadily growing more intolerant; and the example is being followed by other States at home and abroad. Verily, the Scripture is true which says, “And the dragon [“that old serpent called the Devil and Satan”] was wroth with the woman [the Church], and went to make war with the remnant [the last Church or the Church in the last days] of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation 12:17. AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.5
We will furnish our readers a full account of the trials in our next issue. AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.6
LATER:—Another telegram received just before going to press announces that the ten convicted parties, which include Eld. G. W. Colcord and his nephew, Prof. I. C. Colcord, have been refused a new trial and are now locked in the county jail at Dayton, Tenn., and, in consequence, the Graysville Academy is closed. And this is in America in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-five! AMS March 14, 1895, page 88.7