The American Sentinel 10
April 18, 1895
“They Have Become Aggressive” American Sentinel 10, 16, p. 121.
A MOST significant sign of the times in connection with the constantly augmenting Sunday law crusade is the active, aggressive action taken of late by Roman Catholic prelates for the legal enforcement of Sunday observance. When the compulsory Sunday observance movement began several years ago, Roman Catholics fought shy of it, but now all this is changed, and they not only openly favor the movement, but are beginning to assume the leadership. AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.1
On the evening of April 7, two thousand Roman Catholics of this city were addressed by the “Paulist Fathers” Doyle and Elliott on the subject, “The Preservation of the American Sabbath.” Among other significant things, the latter said: The law given on Sinai was a law, and please God, there will be a Sunday law as long as our Government lasts.” AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.2
And now comes the announcement in the Northwestern Chronicle, a Roman Catholic paper of St. Paul, Minn., of the organization of a Roman Catholic association, called the “Sunday Law Observance League.” Priest John Gmeiner, chairman of its press committee, has issued an address “To the W.C.T.U. and all Friends of the American Sabbath,” which is signed by “Mrs. A. V. Nicholas, State Superintendent of Sabbath Observance.” AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.3
This address, which has been sent to the leading papers of Minnesota for publication, begins with a quotation from Crafts’ “Sabbath for Man,” and continues in a strain not distinguishable from an American Sabbath Union document. It concludes with the following appeal:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.4
All W.C.T.U.’s and Y.’s, churches, pastors, young people’s societies, temperance organizations, Law and Order leagues, and individuals are called upon to help maintain our Sabbath as a day of the Lord for the people, without regard to race, sex, or condition, for a day of rest and worship. To this end let us make Sabbath observance week in Minnesota marked by sermons, public meetings, Sunday-school exercises, distribution of literature, and prayer for the better enforcement of law against all infringement of the right of Sabbath observance and particularly against that arch-enemy of God and man, the saloon. AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.5
Priest Gmeiner accompanies the address, as published in the Northwestern Chronicle, of April 5, with a statement of the Protestant organizations that have already indorsed the new Roman Catholic movement. He says: “It has been heartily indorsed and approved by the Methodist Episcopal ministers’ meeting at St. Paul, March 25, and by the Baptist Ministerial Conference held about the same time in the same city.” AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.6
The priest next quotes the indorsement of a leading Presbyterian minister of St. Paul, and closes with a request to “all ministers of St. Paul and throughout the State,” “to lay the question of Sunday observance before the members of their congregations at the earliest convenient occasion, so that a decided move in the right direction may be made at once throughout the State.” A mass meeting is announced at St. Paul for the 15th inst., at which the editor of the Northwestern Chronicle will preside. AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.7
Now, all this is most significant. It shows that Roman Catholics are forging to the front in the universal Sunday-law stampede. For years the W.C.T.U., the National Reform Association, and the American Sabbath Union have appealed with indifferent success to Roman Catholics for assistance in the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws; but now Roman Catholics have assumed the leadership and call upon these same societies to coöperate with them in enforcing the observance of Sunday which they claim has no Bible support, and is therefore a sign of the power of the Roman Catholic Church to ordain feasts and holy days, the observance of which by Protestants they declare “is an homage they pay in spite of themselves to the authority of the [Roman Catholic] Church.” AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.8
The people who publish the AMERICAN SENTINEL have long expected that Roman Catholics and Romanizing Protestants would unite to enforce the Sunday, the mark of papal apostasy upon all. This expectation was based on the “sure word of prophecy,” and was published to the world before there was a sign of such a union, and when such an unnatural union was scouted at as impossible. It has come and it behooves the people who knew it would come, and the thousands who knew of this prediction and who have been watching to see whether it would be fulfilled, to be up and doing while the day lasts, “for soon the night cometh when no man can work;” when the opportunity will be forever past of proclaiming to the world the message: “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.” Revelation 14:9, 10. AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.9
“Sin from a Roman Catholic Standpoint” American Sentinel 10, 16, pp. 121, 122.
THE Roman Catholic claims the “power to command feasts and holy days,” and to “command them under sin.” That is, the church claims the power to ordain holy days and the manner of their observance, and the power to pronounce any disobedience of these commands to be sin, which, if not repented of, results in the eternal ruin of the disobedient one. With this assumption of the church in view, a few observations regarding the law of the church regulating Lent, just past, may be interesting and profitable. AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.1
The following are the commands of the church regulating the fast of Lent, as promulgated by Cardinal Gibbons:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.2
1. All the faithful who have completed their twenty-first year, unless exempt by dispensation or some other legitimate cause, are bound to observe the fast of Lent. AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.3
2. They are to make one meal only a day, except on Sundays. AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.4
3. A small refreshment, commonly called collation, is permitted in the evening. AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.5
5. The following persons are exempt from the obligation of fasting: Persons under twenty-one years of age, the sick, nursing women, those who are obliged to do hard labor, and those who, through weakness, cannot fast, without great prejudice to their health. AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.6
6. The faithful are reminded that, besides the obligation of fasting imposed by the church, this holy season of Lent should be, in an especial manner, a time of earnest prayer, of sorrow for sin, of seclusion from the world and its amusements, and of generous almsgiving. AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.7
Let it be remembers that to disobey these commands of the cardinal is sin. The reader, unacquainted with the rules of the church, will think that these commands are very severe. However, the pope has granted an “indult,” that is, an indulgence to the Roman Catholics of the United States, by which they can violate the above commands, without sin, where others in less favored countries, should they disobey them, would be counted sinners. Here is the indulgence:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 121.8
II
By virtue of an indult to the United States, dated August 2, 1887, the following special dispensations are granted:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.1
1. The use of flesh must be permitted at all meals on Sundays, and once a day on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, with the exception of the second and last Saturdays of Lent. But flesh meat and fat are not to be used at the same meal during Lent, except on Sundays. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.2
2. The use of butter, cheese, milk and eggs is also permitted every day in Lent. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.3
3. It is allowed to take in the morning some warm liquid, as tea, coffee, or thin chocolate, made with water, and with this liquid a mouthful of bread. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.4
4. Those for whom the hour of noon may be an inconvenient time for dinner, may invert the order and take their collation in the morning, and their dinner in the evening. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.5
5. The use of hog’s lard, or dripping, instead of butter, is authorized in preparing permitted food. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.6
6. Persons exempt from the obligations of fasting are free to take meat more than once on those days when its use is granted by dispensation. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.7
III
The Paschal time extends from the first Sunday of Lent till Trinity Sunday, during which time all persons who have attained the proper age are bound to recite worthily the holy communion. The holy season of Lent is a very proper time also for children to make their first confession, which they ought to do generally about the age of seven years. Parents should see to this. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.8
By order of his eminence the cardinal, W. A. REARDON, Chancellor. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.9
Baltimore, Feb. 15, 1895.
It will be noticed that while it is a sin to eat flesh on certain days, it is not sin to eat fish. It will be interesting to note further what is included under the term “fish.” AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.10
The American Ecclesiastical Review, a Roman Catholic monthly, “published for the clergy,” with the authority of superiors (“cum approbationes superoum”), in its April issue, publishes the following question and answer:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.11
Qs. Does the privilege, which exists in the Southern States, of eating seal-duck on days of abstinence, extend to all parts of the country? AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.12
Resp.... Wherever this species of sea-fowl is commonly reckoned in the same category of food as turtles, lobster, frogs, oyster, etc., which though they cannot be called fish, are nevertheless held to be lenten food, there the practice of serving seal-duck is licit. Some regard as included in this category even the meat of beavers, otters, coots, and other semi-marine animals which live almost exclusively in the water and obtain their food there. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.13
From this we learn that, according to the church of Rome, it is a sin to eat flesh on certain days, but it is not a sin to eat fish, seal-duck, turtles, lobsters, frogs, oysters, beavers, otters and coots. In other words, the church damns a man who eats beef or mutton, and commends him when he eats turtles, lobsters, frogs, oysters, beavers, otters and coots. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.14
“Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4), but the Roman Catholic Church has thought to change that law which the Lord, by the Psalmist, calls “perfect,” and by Paul calls “spiritual,” “holy,” “just,” and “good,” and has erected another standard of righteousness, a part of which declares that it is a sin to eat beef and mutton on certain days in certain countries, but righteousness to eat turtles, lobsters, frogs, oysters, beavers, otters and coots. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.15
Oh that Roman Catholics would turn from the burdensome traditions of men to the law of God; from the “vicar of Christ” and “the virgin,” to Him who said, “Come unto me.” AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.16
“The Educational Work of the Adventists” American Sentinel 10, 16, pp. 122, 123.
THE closing of the Adventist academy in Rhea County, Tenn., by the persecution at that place, naturally suggests some question as to the extent and nature of the educational work conducted by this people. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.1
The education facilities of the denomination are summarized by Prof. W. W. Prescott, their educational secretary, in his recent report to the General Conference, as follows:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.2
Battle Creek College, at Battle Creek, Mich.; Union College, at College View, Neb.; Healdsburg College, at Healdsburg, Cal.; Walla Walla College, at College Place, wash.; and Claremont College, at Claremont, South Africa. There are four academies, or schools, doing work of academic grade, in this country; at South Lancaster, Mass.; Mt. Vernon, Ohio; Keene, Texas; and Graysville, Tenn.; and one abroad [Frederikshavn, Denmark]. There are also the West Virginia Preparatory School, the Australasian Bible School, a school in Mexico in connection with the Medical Mission; schools for native children upon Pitcairn Island, upon Raiatea of the Society groups, in the South Pacific Ocean, upon Bonacca of the Bay Islands in the Caribbean Sea, about fifteen church schools in this country and abroad, two General Conference Bible schools, and quite a number of local colporters’ and conference schools not regularly organized. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.3
At the time of the making of this report, February 17, there were enrolled in the regular schools, not including the local colporters’ and conference schools not regularly organized, over three thousand pupils. The total number of instructors and helpers engaged in school work was at the same time one hundred and seventy, approximately. This does not include Bible schools, schools for the education of colporters, or local church schools. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.4
Thus it will be seen that for a denomination numbering only about fifty thousand communicants, the Seventh-day Adventists are doing a large amount of educational work. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.5
Battle Creek College, Battle Creek, Mich., has an enrollment of six hundred and twenty-eight; Union College, Lincoln, Neb., has an enrollment of four hundred and thirty-six; and Graysville Academy, the school closed by the imprisonment of the principal and his first assistant, is credited with an enrollment of one hundred and five. The number of teachers in the Graysville Academy was nine; at Union College, thirty-seven; and Battle Creek College, thirty-four. A larger number at Union College is due to the fact that there are German and Scandinavian departments. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.6
The educational work done by the Adventists is by no means superficial. In fact, they aim at thoroughness in all their work. Education is essential to any people who espouse unpopular doctrines. They must be able to defend their positions, and to defend them intelligently, and this they cannot do without education. Of course, their educational work differs somewhat from that of other denominations, for it has reference more to religious training than perhaps that given by any other denomination. Bible truth is taught in all their schools, and almost everyone takes the “Book of books” as one of his studies. However, the sciences are not neglected, and students leaving some of their institutions and entering various colleges in the country, have passed very satisfactory examinations; in fact, some of the Adventist schools have been highly complimented on the quality of their work by those who have learned of them by coming in contact with students who have entered other and higher institutions of learning. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.7
The Adventists are a practical people, and as far as possible, give a practical education. Most of the students in their colleges and academies have some definite purpose in view, and are studying to fit themselves for some particular sphere of usefulness. Being reared in Christian families, and having Christian aspirations themselves, their students, as a rule, work from a conscientious standpoint, and not simply to be able to pass certain examinations and receive a diploma at the end of their course. They realize that they are fitting themselves for active work in the cause of God, and that their time and even themselves are not their own. Hence a different spirit pervades these institutions from that found in many schools. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.8
The medical missionary work is receiving a good deal of attention from this people. They have at Battle Creek the largest and best equipped medical and surgical sanitarium in the world, and here are educated nurses who receive a thorough training and preparation for active work. Those desiring to take a medical course are encouraged to go to Ann Arbor and enter the regular course there; and many of them subsequently take a post-graduate course at Bellevue, New York. A number of these have already gone to foreign fields and others are preparing to go ere long. AMS April 18, 1895, page 122.9
Tennessee and other States may persecute this people, and attempt to drive them from their borders, but they cannot stay the onflowing tide of their work. They are not fanatical, but they are enthusiastic, and have the courage of their convictions. They are willing to suffer reproach, loss of property, loss of liberty, or even loss of life, for the sake of the truth which they profess. No people make their religion a part of their daily lives more than do the Adventists, and prison bars have no terrors for them when they have the consciousness that they are doing God’s service. AMS April 18, 1895, page 123.1
As related in these columns four weeks ago the academy at Graysville is closed, owing to persecution; but it will not be permitted to remain so. It is the purpose of the denomination to re-open it at the usual time for the beginning of the fall term. AMS April 18, 1895, page 123.2
“The Declaration of Rights of Tennessee Vs. the Tennessee Sunday Law” American Sentinel 10, 16, pp. 124, 125.
THE preceding memorial to the Tennessee legislature deserves more than passing notice. It is a remarkable fact in itself that there should be occasion for such a memorial in the closing decade of the nineteenth century. The facts set forth are startling, the arguments used are convincing, and the principle stated is sound. AMS April 18, 1895, page 124.1
That the Sunday laws are religious in their origin and purpose there can be no doubt. This has so often been admitted even by the defenders of the Sunday laws that it is idle to question it. In deciding the King case in Western Tennessee, August 1, 1891, Judge Hammond, of the United States District Court, said: “Sunday observance is so essentially a part of that [the Christian] religion that we cannot rid our laws of it.” And again, in the same opinion, his honor said:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 124.2
Freedom of religious belief is guaranteed by the Constitution; not in the sense argued here, that King, as a Seventh-day Adventist, or some other as a Jew, or yet another as a Seventh-day Baptist, might set at defiance the prejudices, if you please, of other sects having control of legislation in the matter of Sunday observances, but only in the sense that he should not himself be disturbed in the practices of his creed; which is quite a different thing from saying that in the course of his daily labor, disconnected with his religion, just as much as other people’s labor is disconnected with religion, labor not being an acknowledged principle or tenet of religion by him, nor generally or anywhere, he might disregard laws made in aid, if you choose to say so, of the religion of other sects. AMS April 18, 1895, page 124.3
His honor erred in stating that Mr. King’s daily labor was disconnected from his religion; because Mr. King belonged to a class of religionists who believe that whether they eat or drink, or whatsoever they do, they should do all to the glory of God, and that the fourth commandment not only requires Sabbath rest, but forbids a like treatment of any other day. AMS April 18, 1895, page 124.4
The vital point, however, in this quotation from Judge Hammond’s opinion, is his recognition of the fact that Sunday is a religious institution, and that it has a place in our laws for religious reasons. His honor, Judge Parks, admitted the same truth in his opinion in the recent cases in Rhea County, Tenn. He said:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 124.5
Sunday is, and for a long time has been, recognized by nearly all Christian denominations as the Sabbath, and it is for this reason, no doubt, that the law which protects that day has been acquiesced in as constitutional. AMS April 18, 1895, page 124.6
Such authorities might be greatly multiplied, but it is unnecessary. The reasons given are not in keeping with American principles of government. “There is not a shadow of right in the general Government,” says James Madison, “to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation.” 1 This language is just as true of the government of Tennessee, whose Declaration of Rights declares “That no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” It has certainly the purpose of the framers of the constitution of Tennessee to guarantee absolute freedom of conscience; and the language of the Declaration of Rights is even plainer and more comprehensive than is that of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. AMS April 18, 1895, page 124.7
If it be objected that a man cannot be permitted to do everything that his conscience may lead him to do, it is sufficient to reply in the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power, that their true office is to declares and enforce our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us.” 2 AMS April 18, 1895, page 124.8
The State need not ask what any man’s conscience is, but simply guard the rights of the individual. It is no concern of the State what the individual does so long as in so doing he does not infringe the rights of his fellow-man. Judge Parks stated this principle thus clearly in his opinion already referred to: “A man cannot kill another and excuse himself on the ground that he believed he was carrying out God’s will in so doing, because this would deprive his victim of a natural right, viz.: the enjoyment of life. Do the defendants, in keeping the seventh day and working on the first, thereby interfere with any natural right of their neighbors? or is it an artificial right created by human law?” There can be but one answer given to the judge’s question, viz.: It is an artificial right. Private work on Sunday by one man does not interfere with the right of another man not to work. So that the only reason for enforced Sunday observance, by the individual, is a religious reason, as Judge Parks and Judge Hammond, in common with many other jurists, admit. AMS April 18, 1895, page 124.9
But it was clearly the purpose of the framers of the Declaration of Rights of Tennessee to forever prohibit the legalization of any religious institution or the enforcement of any religious practice. “Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for violation of what government denominated the law of God.” 3 It was doubtless to prevent similar evils that the framers of the Declaration of Rights of Tennessee wisely prohibited the legislature from intermeddling with questions affecting the conscience. AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.1
But the memorial presented to the legislature by the Adventists of Rhea County goes farther than to merely assert their rights of conscience in this matter. It takes the ground that Sunday laws interfere with the rights of conscience of every man. The constitution of Tennessee was evidently not designed to guarantee toleration merely, but to establish religious liberty. It was evidently the purpose of the framers of that instrument to afford equal protection to all citizens of the State, whether Jews, Christians, or agnostics. “The protection of the constitution extends to every individuals or to none. It is the individual that is intended to be protected. The principle is the same whether the many or the few are concerned. The constitution did not mean to inquire how many or how few would profess or not profess this or that particular religion. If there be but a single individual in the State who professes a particular faith, he is as much within the protection of the constitution as if he agreed with the great majority of his fellow-citizens.... Under the constitution of this State the legislature cannot pass any act, the legitimate effect of which is forcibly to establish any merely religious truth, or to enforce any merely religious observances. The legislature has no power over such a subject. When, therefore, the citizen is sought to be compelled by the legislature to do any affirmative religious act, or to refrain from doing anything, because it violates simply a religious principle or observance, the act is unconstitutional.” 4 AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.2
This language, though used concerning the constitution of California, is just as appropriate to the constitution of Tennessee. The Declaration of Rights of the latter State seeks to provide for absolute religious equality: but the Sunday law of the State clearly does give preference to a religious institution, giving it the patronage of public authority. It gives those religious denominations that observe Sunday a decided advantage over all others, and imposes a heavy burden upon observers of another day. Thus it infringes the rights alike, of the seventh-day Christian, of the Jew, and of the man who professes no religion. Nor does it stop here, for, as is clearly set forth in the memorial, it interferes with the right of every man, for it leaves no man free to change his opinion and practice in regard to Sunday work. The memorial ought to receive candid consideration at the hands of the legislature and of the people of Tennessee. AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.3
“They Defend the Persecution” American Sentinel 10, 16, p. 125.
THE Examiner and National Baptist, of this city, has entered courageous, consistent and persistent protest against the persecution of seventh-day observers. However, it is no more than would be expected from the denomination of Roger Williams. This surprise is, that there can be found a Baptist paper that justifies these persecutions. Yet the writer has before him six Baptist papers, four from this country and two from Canada, that attempt to defend these violations of the principle of religious liberty. Some of our readers would doubtless be interested to read some of them. The following from the Texas Baptist Standard, of March 28, is a representative of these defenses, both as to the spirit manifested and arguments(?) adduced:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.1
The Standard has received a copy of the county paper of Rhea County, Tenn., in which there is a lengthy account of the trial and imprisonment of a number of Seventh-day Adventists, who were indicted and convicted for violating the Tennessee Sunday law. Some of our Baptist exchanges have wasted considerable breath in trying to work up sympathy for this kind of lawlessness, but as yet the Standard has not been able to enter into their views of the case. It may be a matter of conscience for a Seventh-day Adventist to keep Saturday, but it is certainly not a matter of conscience for him to become a lawbreaker. Our opinion is that these Adventists knowingly premeditate the breaking of the Sunday law in order to be arrested and put in jail, so that they may be able to raise the cry of persecution. It used to be a matter of conscience with an orthodox Mormon to have anywhere from two to two dozen wives, but the National Government seems to have taken the view that a man’s conscience in such a case had gone wrong, and that the man who carries such a conscience around with him, is a good deal more at home in jail or in the penitentiary than anywhere else. It might be a matter of conscience with some men to whip their wives. And there are a great many men who never suffer a twinge of conscience on account of any violation of the moral code. It is a matter of conscience with the saloon keeper to sell whiskey on Sunday, because there are a great many topers who drink more on Sunday than any other day. From these obvious facts, it would follow that lawlessness should not be tolerated simply because it happens to be done under the guise of religion or on the plea of liberty of conscience. As the Standard sees, it is just as much harm for Seventh-day Adventists to violate the laws governing the Christian Sabbath as it is for the saloon-keeper. To take the position that the Seventh-day Adventists have the right to secularize the Lord’s day, and turn it into a day of work, is to concede all that they claim on the Sabbath question. If they feel in conscience bound to work on Sunday they need not flaunt it in the faces of Christians who believe in keeping the Lord’s day holy unto him. AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.2
In reply to all this we submit the following from the Examiner and National Baptist:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.3
“We did not expect any Baptist would defend the prosecution of otherwise inoffensive Christians for labor on the first day of the week that disturbs nobody else.... It would have been easy, by the use of similar arguments, for those who persecuted Baptists in the past, to have justified their conduct and policy.” AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.4
“Amen!” American Sentinel 10, 16, p. 125.
THE Evangel and Sabbath Outlook, of March 21, encourages the persecuted Seventh-day Adventists of Rhea County, Tenn., with the following words:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.1
We say to these Sabbath-keepers, let the officers have your bodies for prison cells and chains, but sell neither truth nor loyalty to God’s Sabbath. AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.2
To this the Cottage Pulpit, of Nashville, Tenn., responds thus:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.3
Amen! to that sentiment, brother of the Evangel. And may it spread over this State and Union and find a lodgment and take root and grow and bear fruit in the hearts of true patriots everywhere, until the dark spirit of religious bigotry and blindness shall be driven from the field it has invaded under cover of these old “Blue Law” statutes in the codes of this and other States. AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.4
If the legislature of Tennessee in session at the Capitol would do its duty, it would not adjourn until it has wiped off the stain of this Rhea County disgrace from the escutcheon of our good commonwealth. If the members of the two houses of this legislature would do an act of lasting benefit to the State and honor to themselves, individually and collectively, they have only to apply the knife to the religious persecuting section in our revised code, and hurl it out! AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.5
To the utterances of both the Sabbath Outlook and the Cottage Pulpit, the SENTINEL says Amen! AMS April 18, 1895, page 125.6
“Our Tennessee Letter” American Sentinel 10, 16, p. 127.
MATTERS at Graysville are running along about as usual. It is a quiet neighborhood and withal an agricultural community, and most people are quite busy with their spring work. The non-resident students who are attending the academy have all left for their homes. There is still some discussion about the imprisonment of the Adventists, and as to the people opinion is somewhat divided about the propriety of prosecuting under the Sunday law. The better class of citizens, the reading and thinking people, are pretty generally agreed that this is religious persecution, and that it is a shame that inoffensive citizens should be arrested and imprisoned for no other offense than doing upon Sunday, work which would be held to be entirely commendable on any other day. The Adventists themselves are pursuing the even tenor of their way as though nothing had happened. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.1
The sheriff came to-day with warrants to arrest the following members of the Graysville Seventh-day Adventist:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.2
| L. S. Abbott, | 2 cases (now in jail). |
| H. C. Leach, | “ |
| Lewis Abbott, | “ |
| N. E. England, | 1 case. |
| Byrd Terry, | “ |
| Dwight Plumb, | ” (now in jail). |
| W. J. Kerr, | ” (was in jail). |
| Monroe Morgan, | “ |
| E. R. Gillett, | “ |
| Columbus Moyers, | “ |
| Wallace Ridgway, | “ |
| J. M. Hall, | “ |
| Oscar England, | “ |
| W. S. Burchard, | ” (now in jail). |
All who were found gave bonds to appear at the next term of court for trial, but there is no thought of leaving to avoid the processes of the court, and no revengeful expressions are heard concerning those who persecute them. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.1
The fate of the petition for the release of the imprisoned Adventists, so generously signed by officials and private citizens and addressed to the County Court (a body composed of the justices of the peace of the county), is thus given in the Dayton Republican, of April 5:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.2
Wouldn’t Do It
THE COUNTY COURT REFUSES TO LIBERATE THE ADVENTISTS—A TIE VOTE
Monday evening the petitions asking for the release of the Adventists in jail were presented to the County Court. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.3
Squire McPherson said if they were released now it would encourage them and more offenses would be committed and more arrests follow. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.4
Hon. John A. Denton said that it would be money saved to the county to now release them; that they had received enough punishment; that in all other respects they were law-abiding, Christian people. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.5
A resolution had been passed in January, 1893, by the County Court that no one should be released from jail unless recommended by the judge or justice before whom tried. Squire Hicks moved that this record be expunged. After considerable talk he withdrew his motion at McPherson’s request and court adjourned. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.6
Tuesday morning Squire Hicks again renewed his motion to expunge the record. McPherson moved to table it, and a vote being taken, it was laid on the table by 15 to 11. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.7
In the afternoon Squire Hicks moved to suspend the resolution referred to for the present term of court. McPherson moved to table, which was lost by 14 to 11, and Hicks’ motion being put was carried by 13 to 12. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.8
A motion to release the Adventists was made by Squire Merritt. McPherson moved to table it, and the vote being taken it was announced as tabled by 12 to 11. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.9
Court adjourned Tuesday evening. Wednesday afternoon it was found that the last vote was a tie—12 to 12, this discovery being made on looking over the vote on the tally sheet. Chairman pro tem, Benson, who took the ayes and noes down as cast, was in the clerk’s office when the discovery was made, and verified this by going carefully over each justice’s name and how he had voted. Mr. Benson said it was an error of his head and not the heart; that he had called McPherson to help count the vote and they had both made it 12 to 11. It is not known how Chairman Crawford would have voted on a tie vote. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.10
The vote as cast was— AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.11
For releasing—A. M. Broyles, Keylon, Smith, Fugate, A. P. Hayes, Eli Hayes, Hicks, Mowry, Morgan, Merritt, Clouse, Baldwin—12. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.12
Against releasing—Waterhouse, Wyrick, Trentham, Gillespie, D. E. Broyles, Benson, King, Dodd, Lillard, Monday, Torbett, McPherson—12. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.13
Not voting—Knight, Romines, Green. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.14
Absent—Henry. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.15
A significant incident happened, a few days since, on one of the streets of Graysville when two Adventists met. One was a deacon of the church, and, stopping, he said to the other: “Wright Raines (the man who prosecuted them) and his family are suffering for the necessaries of life. What ought we to do in this case?” The other responded: “What does the Bible say?” Simultaneously the words from the Saviour fell from the lips of both: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him: if he thirst, give him drink.” The one who first raised the question said: “Yes, that’s right; but if we give him anything he’ll perhaps think that we are trying to buy his favor.” But the other said: “How can that be, since the trials are over, and Mr. Raines is not the prosecutor in the cases to be tried in the next term of court?” It was therefore agreed that the Scripture injunction should be followed. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.16
The Adventists bring their religion into their daily lives to a great extent. Prayer and praise is to be daily heard in every Adventists family, and in their meetings there is a marked spirit of devotion. They are Bible Christians, and true Protestants, for the Bible is their only rule of faith and practice, and a “thus saith the Lord” is with them the end of controversy. An officer of the court said to the writer only a few days ago: “These Adventists are the best example of Rhea County, and the county would be better off if we had a thousand of them.” And yet several of them are confined in the Rhea County jail, and others are under indictment and will doubtless be imprisoned next July. But they do not repine, and will not swerve from what they regard to be their duty to God. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.17
But this is not saying that it is easy for these people to suffer persecution. They are human and have the feelings to which human flesh is heir. Their hearts are just as tender and their affections as warm, as the hearts and affections of other people, and when the father and husband is taken away and locked up in jail, it is a cruel blow to the wife and children; but there is no repining on the part of those who are left at home. The women are not heard, as was Job’s wife, begging their husbands to curse God and die; but, on the contrary, they encourage their husbands to faithfulness, and say: “We are ready to go too when our time comes.” It is possible to go too when our time comes.” It is possible to imprison whole families, or even entire communities, of such people, but it is not possible to turn them from their allegiance to God and to his law. They can go to prison—or to death if need by—but they cannot deny their faith. AMS April 18, 1895, page 127.18
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 16, p. 128.
THE Associated Press announced on the 11th inst. that Governor Turney had pardoned the five Seventh-day Adventists imprisoned at Dayton, Tenn., March 8. All honor to Governor Turney. The governor would now do credit to himself should he send a message to the Tennessee Legislature now in session recommending the repeal of the Sunday law under which they were imprisoned. The pardons were granted on the recommendation of the trial-judge, Judge J. G. Parks, who shares with the governor the honors of the noble act. AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.1
UNDER the circumstances, it is safe to say that this action of the officials of Tennessee is without a parallel in our history. Here were five men duly convicted of the violation of the law of the State and committed to prison upon refusal to pay the costs duly assessed: not only so, but they had respectfully but firmly declared in court that they could not obey the law, and yet they were pardoned by the governor upon the recommendation of the trial-judge. This can only be regarded as a confession that the law is unjust and that it ought to be repealed. AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.2
THE legislature of Massachusetts has enacted a most rigid Sunday law. It declares that no entertainment shall be given on Sunday at which ad admission fee is charged, and makes any person attending such prohibited entertainment liable to a fine of five dollars. Another portion of the law reads thus:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.3
Whoever, on the Lord’s day, keeps open his shop, warehouse or workhouse, or does any manual labor, business or work, except works of necessity and charity, or takes part in any sport game, or play, except a sacred concert, shall be punished by a fine of $50 for each offense, and the owner of any hall in which said law is violated is liable to a fine of $500. AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.4
It will be noticed that the church theater is exempted,—“any sport, game, or play, except a sacred concert.” AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.5
FOR some time the Polish Roman Catholic Church, of Omaha, Neb., has been the scene of disgraceful fights between factions in the church. The latest developments are the burning of the church and the arrest of a priest as the probable incendiary. It is alleged that the that the church was saturated in the second story with kerosene. By a court decision the priest’s faction would have been compelled to vacate the church in two days, and the evidence, it is said, clearly proves that the priest and his faction decided to burn the church rather than abandon it to the other faction. And yet the Roman Catholic Church declares that she is the only power that can control the mobs of the world. AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.6
THE latest news from the prosecuted Seventh-day Adventists of London is that the authorities have seized their goods to the value of $90, which they will sell to collect fine and costs, amounting to $30. AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.7
The following brief statement accompanying the above facts, as issued by the persecuted Adventists, will explain their attitude toward the prosecution:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.8
It is not from stubbornness or any disrespect to the authorities that the fines have not been paid. If they had been imposed for any ordinary infraction of the law, they would have been paid on once. But the fourth commandment forbids us to recognize Sunday as in any way whatever different from the succeeding five days of the week. To do so would be sin. Consequently, to pay a fine for violation of a human enactment that bids us recognize Sunday as a day of rest, would be to put ourselves on the side of that human law, in opposition to the commandments of God. If property is forcibly taken to satisfy fines, those who take it are alone responsible; but we cannot by any act whatever become partakers in the sin of the government in setting itself above the authority of the Creator. AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.9
IN 1892 the Supreme Court of the United States declared that “this is a Christian nation,” and cited as one proof the “Sabbath laws” of the various States. The leaders of the Sunday-law crusade immediately seized upon this decision as furnishing the highest possible authority for Sunday legislation. Armed with this decision the Sunday-law leaders besieged Congress to enact a law closing the World’s Fair on Sunday, not so much for the purpose of shutting the Fair on Sunday as for the purpose of committing Congress to the creation of a precedent for Federal legislation favorable to Sunday sacredness. They succeeded, and Sunday sacredness was declared established. AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.10
But startling to relate, the Congress of the United States desecrated in 1895 what it had hallowed in 1892. It continued in session the great part of Sunday, March 3, and engaged in work just as secular as that done by the imprisoned Adventists in Rhea County, Tenn. But still more startling to the apostle of compulsory Sunday observance comes the information that the United States Supreme Court, the creator of this “Christian nation,” held a session on Sunday, April 7, and performed work just as secular as was ever performed by an Adventist anywhere. Thus it would appear that the creators of the “Christian nation” and the “Christian Sabbath” have destroyed what they created. This fatal fact is becoming apparent to the Sunday-law advocates, and they have already declared their intention of turning the desecrators out and putting in their places men who will recreate what their predecessors destroyed. Now all this trouble could be avoided by accepting the Sabbath blessed and sanctified by the “Lord of the Sabbath,” and which does not depend for its perpetuity on legislative or judicial action. AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.11
IN harmony with what appears to be concerted action on the part of the papacy in the United States to push the enforcement of Sunday laws, the Catholic Review, of March 31, publishes a defense of compulsory Sunday observance, in which occurs the following:— AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.12
In every one of the original States, including, of course, New York, the common law of England in force at the time of the separation was declared to be reënacted, with some exceptions bearing upon political sovereignty, land tenure, and the like, necessary to effectuate the separation and its new conditions. But the common law of England presupposed the Christian religion and that remained to the State of New York and is still in force. AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.13
With this for a basis the article concludes that “the courts will be bound to uphold Sunday as a day of worship and of rest from unnecessary labor.” This is the same position which has always been taken by those professed Protestants who were so anxious to secure the power of the State in support of their dogma of Sunday sacredness. Rome has a number of dogmas which she will yet build on this same foundation with the same reasoning to the consternation of these unwise Protestants. AMS April 18, 1895, page 128.14