The American Sentinel 10
May 9, 1895
“Editorial” American Sentinel 10, 19, pp. 145, 146.
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL sincerely loves all Roman Catholics, from the pope on his throne to the peddler under his pack. AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.1
WE trust that our love for them is so great that if called upon to do so we would be willing to die that we might do them good. AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.2
THE reason for making these statements at this time is to correct a wrong impression which may have been made upon the minds of Roman Catholics, and for which wrong impression we may be partially to blame. AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.3
WE have said much and will say more about the papacy, its history, its doctrines, and its aims, both as regards America and the world; and this is written that Roman Catholics may know the motives from which we speak and the object at which we aim. AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.4
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is moved to speak against the character and aims of the papacy, with the hope of saving Roman Catholics themselves from their own false system, and to save others from being deceived into believing that the system constitutes the true Church of Christ. This we shall endeavor to do in the spirit of Christian love, and wherein we shall fail in doing this we shall misrepresent and dishonor the cause we seek to serve. AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.5
WE cannot hope to have the friendship of all those who are in bondage to the errors of Rome, because were we to tell the truth even with the tongue, and amid the sympathetic tears of the world’s Redeemer, it would not save us, as it did not save him, from the charge of being an enemy. Paul, when contending for the gospel of faith against the bondage of works,—the same gospel for which we stand, and the same bondage against which we speak,—was led to cry out in the travel of his souls, “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.6
TWO dangers lie in the path of him who would faithfully tell the truth. First, there is the danger of being unnecessarily severe, as Martin Luther was at times: and on the other hand, through an over desire to please, the danger of compromising the truth as did Philip Melancthon at the Diet of Augsburg. Luther, in his advocacy of truth, was sometimes harsh, but invincible, while Malancthon was usually mild but sometimes vacilating. We shall take neither for our model, but instead, the perfect Reformer, the “Lion of the tribe of Judah,” “the Prince of Peace.” AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.7
WITH Jesus as our model we will speak the truth in love, but we will speak the truth. It is false charity that is silencing the Protestant Churches to Roman Catholic errors and aggressions. True Christian love will lead its possessor to die for the good of one in error, but will never consent to a compromise with error. It led the Apostle Peter to say to the Jews, in one breath: “Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life;” and in the next, “Brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it.” It inspired the martyr Stephen to say to the Jews, “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers?” And then when his hearers were stoning out his faithful life, this same infinite love led him to pray “with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.8
THE SENTINEL has no desire and no occasion to question the sincerity of Roman Catholics in their beliefs, or their desire to attain to supreme power in America and the world for the good of America and the world. We do not even question the sincerity of the popes, princes, and prelates who violated safe conducts and tortured and burned “heretics” for the good of their souls and the good of society. On the contrary, we believe they were sincere; for the inhuman cruelties they practiced can only be explained on the ground that their perpetrators were actuated by a mistaken sense of duty to God that led them to stifle the promptings of even natural affection; and that this view is correct is proven by the words of Christ who said, “The time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.9
BUT to admit that Roman Catholics are sincere in their erroneous doctrines and conscientious in their cruelties to dissenters, does not mitigate the errors nor lessen the crimes of Catholicism, nor yet the duty to faithfully oppose them. However, it does admonish us to eliminate from our utterances all human hate and harshness, all unsanctified elements of the natural heart, all ridicule,—everything but what is absolutely necessary to vindicate the truth, and to speak even this in love. AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.10
WE are aware that Roman Catholics in the United States profess to be satisfied with the American principle of separation of Church and State. But should we admit this, the fact still remains that the papacy in the United States is an integral part of the papacy as a whole, and were Roman Catholics to become liberalized by American institutions, the controlling spirit of the church, which never changes, would eventually rebuke and destroy such liberality. A striking instance of this is before us. For years Cardinal Gibbons has publish in “Faith of Our Fathers” (1893, p. 283), an indorsement of the American idea of separation of Church and State, and a plain disavowal of any desire for State patronage; but now comes Pope Leo’s encyclical to America and condemns the American principle and the cardinal’s indorsement of it. We print the two in parallel columns:— AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.11
| I do not wish to see the day when the church will invoke or receive any government aid to build our churches, or to pay the salary of our clergy; for the government may then begin to dictate to us what doctrines we ought to preach. And in proportion as State patronage would increase, the sympathy and aid of the faithful would diminish. | It would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that ... it would be universally lawful or expedient for the church and State to be, as in America, separate and divorced.... She [the church] would bring forth more abundant fruit if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. |
It is for reasons like the foregoing that we cannot cease to regard the papacy as the great enemy of religious liberty. At the same time we doubt not that there are those connected with the system who are in favor of religious freedom. Indeed, we are persuaded that there are those in the Roman Catholic Church who are sincere, self-sacrificing Christians, not because of their system, but notwithstanding it. However, it would be unfaithfulness to them and treason to the cause of Christ should we silence our warnings for fear of giving offense. AMS May 9, 1895, page 145.12
HAVING said this we now promise Roman Catholics and Romanizing Protestants, that, the Lord being our helper, we will more earnestly and more faithfully than ever oppose with the truth the soul-destroying errors of the papacy, and unveil its plottings for the supremacy of America, and through America, the supremacy of the world. We shall point to the satanic cruelties of which the church has never repented, and call Roman Catholics away from the professed vicars of Christ who instigated or approved these cruelties, to Christ himself who rebuked this spirit in his apostles, and who said, “The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them;” and we call upon all would battle for truth and religious liberty to united with us in maintaining, in this age of compromise and concession, the true principles of Protestantism for the good of the honest and truth-loving in both Catholicism and compromising Protestantism. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.1
“Mormon Polygamy and Religious Liberty” American Sentinel 10, 19, p. 146.
THE only paper in Rhea County, Tenn., that attempts to justify the prosecution of the Graysville Adventists under the iniquitous Sunday law of that State, published an article recently, in which an effort was made to show a parallel between private Sunday work and the practice of polygamy. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.1
This is not the first time that this view has been taken of this matter. In several cases even judges upon the bench have assumed that Sunday legislation and laws forbidding plural marriages rested upon the same foundation and were of the same character; but that this is a serious mistake must be apparent to any one who will lay aside prejudice and give the subject careful thought. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.2
The basis of Sunday legislation is the supposed sacred character of the day, and the case would not be different were the day really the divinely-appointed Sabbath. The basis of laws regulating marriage is the rights of the contracting parties and of their prospective offspring. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.3
To permit plural marriages in any part of the nation would be to invalidate to a certain extent every marriage contract in every State. No woman would be legally secure in the possession of a whole husband, for any man by going into that State or Territory in which polygamy was permitted could take one or more additional wives, and the woman who had married him in good faith would have no redress. Thus it is seen that the State must prohibit polygamy in every case, or else fail of the very object for which governments are instituted among men, namely, the preservation of natural rights. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.4
Again, marriage imposes upon those who enter it, certain obligations, and they must not be permitted to escape those responsibilities, for if they do, the burdens which they should bear will fall upon others. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.5
To protect the community from the imposition of this burden, the State rightly insists that marriage shall not be transient, but permanent. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.6
But none of these things is true of a failure to keep a Sabbath. One man’s neglect or refusal to keep the Sabbath does not deprive another of that privilege: neither does it burden the State. This is practically admitted by even the most zealous advocates of what they are pleased to term a “civil Sunday law.” In answering the question, “Should there not be a law to protect the Jew in the observance of his Sabbath?” Rev. W. F. Crafts well says, “It is not sufficiently emphasized that the Jew is left absolutely free to observe the seventh day. He can close his shop: he can refuse to work.” This is true: but it is no more true of the Jew and the seventh day than it is of the Sunday-keeper and the first day. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.7
It must therefore be apparent that there exists no sufficient civil reason for Sunday laws, and that Sunday is therefore not, properly speaking, a civil institution, but a religious institution recognized by civil law and enforced by civil power. But this is contrary to the entire spirit of American institutions and in flagrant conflict with the fundamental law of the nation and of the several States. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.8
“How They Change the Sabbath from the Seventh to the First Day” American Sentinel 10, 19, p. 146.
THE following, from the Christian Instructor and United Presbyterian Witness, of April 11, attempts to justify the observance of the first day of the week as the Sabbath, thus:— AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.1
Is it so that the Bible requires the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath still? It is admitted that that was the day appointed by God at first, that it was observed until the time of Christ, that it is observed still by orthodox Jews. There is no need of discussion on these points: for no one, we presume, denies them. But the question is, whether God requires men all around the world to keep precisely the same twenty-four hours that the Jews always kept as Sabbath, and requires it to the end of time. The Apostle Paul, in Colossians, second chapter, as we have noted elsewhere in this paper, speaking of Jewish institutions, teaches that Christ nailed Jewish law to his cross, and the ordinances thereof were taken away. Therefore he says: “Let no man judge you ... in respect to Sabbath days.” Whether they be Catholics, Jews or Adventists, don’t let them trouble you about these. But Christ did not nail the moral law to his cross and take it away, but he established it as the rule of life; so the moral duty of keeping holy one day in seven is an “everlasting covenant;” it is an “everlasting sign.” To keep the same identical twenty-four hours, however, all around the world is an impossibility. The same twenty-four hours is not, and never was, holy time all around the world. So it is not the exact time but the seventh part of the time in regular order of days that God required of man to observe as the Sabbath. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.2
The following is a restatement of the foregoing, with some legitimate and even necessary deductions therefrom:— AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.3
1. Christ nailed the seventh-day Sabbath to the cross. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.4
2. Christ reëstablished the keeping of one day in seven as an “everlasting covenant,” an “everlasting sign.” AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.5
3. It is impossible to keep the same seventh day all around the world, but we admit that the Jews have always done this and are still doing it. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.6
4. God does not require all men to keep the same seventh day, but the same seventh part of time, which is dependent entirely on the day with which the counting begins. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.7
5. But since this logic is all right for the purpose for which it was invented, that is, to get rid of the “seventh-day Sabbath,” it is disastrous if used for any other purpose, for it leaves every one to choose his own day which leads to utter confusion: therefore all men ought to keep the same seventh part of time. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.8
6. And that seventh part of time must fall on the first day of the week and not on the seventh day, since to permit it to fall on the seventh day would be to defeat our object to get rid of the “seventh-day Sabbath.” AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.9
.7. Since some men refuse to accept the seventh part of time which we have decided to make holy time, and choose to decide for themselves which seventh they will observe, it is absolutely necessary for all nations the world over to enact laws to compel all men to observe the same seventh part of time which we observe, notwithstanding we said it was impossible to keep the same day all around the world. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.10
.8. We only quoted a part of one scripture to prove that the seventh-day Sabbath is abolished; and the reason why we quoted only a part was because the other part explains that the sabbath days of which Paul says, “Let no man therefore judge you,” “are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” If we had quoted this some might think that the sabbaths referred to are the Sabbaths of the ceremonial law (Leviticus 23), which pointed to Christ and ceased at his coming, and not to the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment which points to creation. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.11
.9. Then again, the part of the text we used must not be used against our first-day Sabbath, but only against the seventh-day Sabbath, for if used against us it would be difficult to explain why we could judge others who do not want to keep our seventh part of time, and would embarrass us in enacting and enforcing laws compelling all men to keep our first-day Sabbath. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.12
“The Catholic Moral Standard” American Sentinel 10, 19, pp. 146, 147.
IN giving his reasons, in the Converted Catholic, for January, for becoming a Protestant, Rev. Jas. A. O’Connor says:— AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.1
Butler’s Cathechism [sic.] told me in those days of my youth that “a grievous offense or transgression against the law of God” is called a “mortal sin,” because “it kills the soul and brings everlasting death and damnation on the soul;” while venial sin does not kill, but only “hurts the soul by disposing to mortal sin.” Furthermore I was taught by this Catechism that the gravity of an evil action was intensified by being perpetrated on Sunday. The question was: “Is the sin the greater for being committed on Sunday?” and the answer was: “Most certainly.” AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.2
That this is still the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church was illustrated by Rev. Henry A. Braun, D.D., Rector of St. Agnes’ Roman Catholic Church on East Forty-third Street, this city, when in company with another converted priest I called on him for tickets for the service in his church, the feast of St. Agnes, in February, 1893, when Bishop McQuaid preached and Archbishop Corrigan, Bishop McDonnell of Brooklyn, and a score of priests were present. Father Braun received us as intelligent gentlemen who called on him for press tickets that would give us good seats, and he detained us for half an hour while eulogizing the parochial school system. We listened with apparent interest, and when he had concluded he illustrated the necessity of parochial school teaching as distinguished from the public schools by saying that a Catholic boy who had done wrong or was guilty of sin would realize the gravity of the offense more keenly if told by his teacher that the day in which the transgression occurred was, for example, Good Friday, the day on which our Lord died, or the Lord’s day, Sunday. That, said he, would be an appeal to the boy’s faith that would restrain him from future transgressions. “Don’t you think so?” he said to me. AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.3
Very quickly and forcibly I replied, “Not at all. That is one of the reasons why the American people will never consent to allow public money to be given to your schools. You teach a false and unchristian system of morality. A sin is a sin whether committed on Friday, Sunday, Monday, or any other day of the week.” AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.4
Father Braun’s face grew scarlet, but he tried to recover his ground by the question: “Don’t you think the sin is greater by being committed on a holy day—for example, is it not a greater sin to get drunk on Sunday than on any other day of the week?” AMS May 9, 1895, page 146.5
His manner was embarrassed and I replied good-humoredly, “It depends on the kind of a drunk. If it is a case of intoxication it is as bad as Sunday as on any other day of the week, no more or less; a drunk is a drunk whenever it occurs, and the drunkard’s sin is as great on Wednesday as on Sunday. That is another instance of the immoral teaching of your church. Your standard of morality is totally different from that of the American people, and they will never indorse such doctrine by giving support to your schools.” AMS May 9, 1895, page 147.1
Mr. O’Connor is quite right in regard to the quality of an act. Sin is sin on whatever day it is committed. But we are not so sure that he is right about the views of the American people. In fact, everything goes to show that the “American” view is substantially the Catholic view. Indeed, almost every American State prohibits on Sunday some things which are not prohibited to Catholics by the church except for such hours of the day as are devoted to public worship, and then only that the people may be the more free to attend Sunday services. This shows that even in the “American” conception the time of the commission of an act changes the quality of the act. AMS May 9, 1895, page 147.2
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 19, p. 152.
THE confiscation bill has been defeated in the Tennessee Legislature. Had this bill passed it would have enabled the enemies of Seventh-day Adventists to have absolutely stripped them of their property. Its defeat shows that the law-makers of that State are not without some humane impulses. AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.1
THE World, of the 30th ult., had this item of news:— AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.2
PARK RIDGE, N.J., April 20.—Henry Lauschall and his fifteen-year-old son Paul, who live at the Hotel Lavelle, No. 104 Wooster Street, New York, were arrested at Woodcliff yesterday morning by Constable S. J. Van Wagonen, on the charge of fishing on Sunday in the Pacekack Brook. The constable ordered them to stop fishing under threat of arrest. They gave no attention to the order, and were taken before Justice W. B. Smith, of Park Ridge. They pleaded guilty to the charge, and were fine $20 each. Landlord Louis Layette of New York, paid the fines, and says that he will carry the case to the higher courts. AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.3
This is simply another illustration of the tyranny of Sunday laws. What possible reason could there be for forbidding fishing on Sunday more than on other days except the supposed sacred character of the day? and what business has the State to meddle with any such question? AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.4
A CATHOLIC paper has this significant item relative to “Father” Elliott’s propaganda for the “conversion” of Protestants:— AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.5
The missions to non-Catholic Americans that Father Elliott has been preaching in Michigan and Ohio, are making an impression not only on the audiences he seeks, but also on those of the faith. The young men readers of the Catholic Columbian having been asked in what way could $50,000 be best expended for the public good, one of them answers: “I would give the $50,000 to the Paulist Fathers for the extension of their missions to non-Catholics.” A happy choice, truly, for that sum could not be spent on a better cause! AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.6
It is certain that the Catholics of this country are manifesting a wonderful activity in the work of proselyting from the ranks of other churches. They discern the drift in their direction and are simply out with their grab-hooks to secure that which is floating their way. AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.7
THE fact that every year adds immensely to the volume of civil and criminal law thought to be necessary to regulate the conduct of the people, should admonish us that we live in an age when self-government is rapidly becoming a lost art. AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.8
True freedom consists not in liberty to follow one’s own inclinations in all things, but in a practical recognition by both government and people of the principles of eternal justice. Freedom does not mean license, for that only is liberty which recognizes and respects the rights of others equally with our own. AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.9
There is a sound basis for the words of Cowper:— AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.10
He is a freeman, whom the truth makes free, AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.11
And all are slaves beside. There’s not a chain, AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.12
That hellish foes, confederate for his harm, AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.13
With as much ease as Samson his green withes. AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.14
This is not saying that men may not deny to their fellows the free exercise of their God-given rights,—the history of the world too clearly proves that,—but it is saying that while despotic power may invade human rights, “Justice still confirms them.” In the words of Elder Colcord before a Tennessee court: “There is a time coming when there will be a change, and God and not man will be the Judge—and in that court questions will be decided not by the statute books of Tennessee, but by the law of God.” AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.15
Rights may be trampled upon now, but there is a time coming when wrongs shall be righted and the truth vindicated, when “the prisoner and serf shall go free,” when “truth crushed to earth shall rise again.” It is better in the long run to be right than to be popular. AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.16
AN Old Testament exemplification of Christ’s words, “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” is found in the record of the experience of the three Hebrew worthies who were cast into the “fiery furnace.” They disobeyed the king’s command to “fall down and worship the golden image” because it required them to render to Nebuchadnezzar and his golden image that which was due alone to God; but they obeyed the king’s command to “come forth, and come hither,” because it was their duty to render obedience to the king in matters not conflicting with their duty to God; and the Lord, who approved their disobedience by miraculously preserving them alive, brought the miracle to a close at the command of the king, that the faithful men might obey the consistent command. AMS May 9, 1895, page 152.17