The American Sentinel 10
May 16, 1895
“Editorial” American Sentinel 10, 20, pp. 153, 154.
ONE of the most far-reaching and destruction errors of the day is the exaltation of the State to a place it was never designed to occupy, and which in the very nature of things it cannot occupy without destroying at once liberty in both civil and religious things, and putting man in the place of God. AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.1
THE pagan conception of the State is summed up in the motto: “The voice of the people is the voice of God.” The proper conception of the State is tersely expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; ... that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.2
HERE the individual and not the State is given the first place; and government, instead of being lord and master, is the servant of the people, created by them and deriving its just powers from them. God, the Creator, and not the State, is declared to be the author of rights. And not only is he in this declared to be superior to the State, but he is likewise set forth as superior to the people; hence it is impossible that the voice of the people should be “the voice of God.” The people make the State, and it derives all its just powers from the people; but even they, the people, the makers of the State, do not make rights, and cannot destroy them. They may by despotic power invade these rights, but they still exist, for they are God-given and are co-existent with their Author, for they subsist in his very nature. AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.3
TO deny the existence of inalienable, God-given rights, rights that are above and beyond the power of human government to take away, is to deny the sovereignty of God himself and to make him subordinate to the State; for it is to put the State in the place of God, or rather to make the State of God, which is, in fact, the pagan conception of the State; hence the pagan motto previously quoted, or in other words, the assumption that the people in their aggregate capacity are divine, that by sufficiently multiplying the finite, infinity is the result, that by massing humanity, divinity is created. AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.4
THE doctrine of inalienable rights was not new, as some seem to suppose, when the Declaration of Independence was written. Eleven years before Jefferson wrote that immortal document, Blackstone had published to the world this statement of the same principle:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.5
Those rights which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human law to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.6
IT was perhaps only liberty pertaining to civil things, to the mere temporalities of life, that Blackstone had in mind when he wrote these words; but be that as it may, a greater than Blackstone had, centuries before, enunciated the doctrine of inalienable rights as pertaining to man’s relations to his Creator; for this doctrine is set forth as certainly in the words: “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s,” as in the Declaration of Independence itself. AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.7
BUT even before the time of our Saviour this principle had been discovered and boldly announced in the court of the most powerful monarch of ancient times. The three captive Hebrews were conscious of rights superior to human law when they boldly declared to Nebuchadnezzar: “Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” This was a declaration of independence long antedating the one written by Jefferson, and was as truly an avowal of the existence of natural, God-given rights as was the document signed by our forefathers in Philadelphia, on the Fourth of July, 1776. The words of Daniel to the king when he had deliberately disobeyed him in the matter of offering prayer, are likewise an assertion of the same divine right. He had disobeyed the king, and yet he said boldly: “My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.” AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.8
THAT the doctrine of inalienable rights must be true is evident from the fact that in no other way could God retain the throne of moral dominion. Man must have, so far as his fellow-men are concerned, perfect liberty in things pertaining to God, or else God could not govern by a perfect law. Had God committed the administration of his law to men, it must necessarily have been imperfect since the administrators of law must also interpret the law which they administer; and the law is, for the time being, whatever its authorized interpreter says it is. Hence, had god committed to men moral government there could in the very nature of the case, have been no certain moral standard. AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.9
GOD has committed to man the maintenance of his own rights in civil things; and it is for this purpose that civil government is ordained. Hence civil government should be used for no other purpose than the conservation of civil rights. It was Jefferson who said of the duties of legislators: “Their true office is to declare and enforce our natural right and duties and to take none of them from us. No man,” he continues, “has a natural right to commit aggressions on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of society; and this is all that the laws should enforce upon him.” AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.10
BUT some may query, Why spend time proving in this enlightened age, in the closing decade of the nineteenth century, a truth which was recognized as self-evident more than a century ago? Simply because it is neither as clearly seen nor as universally recognized to-day as it was in 1776. A different theory of civil government obtains largely to-day. Instead of being regarded as the creatury and servant of the people, the State is clothed with “that divinity” which was once supposed to “hedge about a king;” government, instead of being merely the conservator of natural rights, is said to have “unlimited and undivided power over every individual within its jurisdiction, over every institution that its subjects may establish within its territory, and over every commodity that exists within its territory.” 1 In short, the State, like the king, “can do no wrong.” AMS May 16, 1895, page 153.11
SUCH a theory is utterly destructive of both civil and religious liberty. It destroys all individual liberty and makes every man a slave. Yea more, it puts the State in the place of God and makes every man who accepts it a veritable pagan; and that whether he realizes it or not, for no man can accept this theory of government and say with the apostles: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” For this reason the AMERICAN SENTINEL protests against the doctrine as un-American and unchristian. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.1
“Protestants Petition Satolli” American Sentinel 10, 20, p. 154.
A FEW weeks since, “Father” Phelan, editor of the Western Watchman, published some shamefully untrue things about Christian Endeavor conventions. These false charges, however, could not harm Christian Endeavorers; but since they were made, Christian Endeavorers have themselves said and done things that are harming them. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.1
The proper thing for them to have done is thus stated by Christ:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.2
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Matthew 5:11, 12. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.3
But instead of following the counsel of Christ and being “exceeding glad,” the Christian Endeavorers became “exceeding made,” and one of their spokesmen is reported as saying, in an address entitled, “Father Phelan’s base attack upon the young people of America“:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.4
Judas Iscariot was a gentleman compared with this shameless priest. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Iscariot would decline to recognize him below. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.5
Father confessor! God pity the poor girl that should ever be so silly as to whisper her secrets in such a swine’s ears. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.6
Retraction is no remedy. Swift and adequate punishment alone will reach the case, and if it does not soon follow, the whole Romish Church authorities will be held responsible. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.7
But the Christian Endeavorers did not stop with rendering railing for railing, cursing for cursing, but have, astonishing to relate, petitioned Mgr. Satolli to curse “Father” Phelan also. The following is a copy of this remarkable document:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.8
To His Reverence, Mgr. Satolli, Roman Catholic University, Washington, D. C.:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.9
We, the undersigned Christian Endeavorers of Asbury Park, N. J., respectfully call your attention to the wicked, false, and slanderous statements published by Father Phelan, one of your priests in St. Louis. This base and inexcusable assault is made upon more than three millions of pious, earnest, godly, and irreproachable young Christians in America. It is unparalleled in its baseness and enormity, and should consign its author in everlasting infamy and contempt. We therefore ask that the creature from which it emanated be degraded, unfrocked, and deposed from the high position which he has so recklessly disgrace. We are encouraged to make this petition from the many protestations which you, as well as the Holy See which you ably represent, have recently fully and earnestly made, with full confidence that you will give it immediate and careful consideration. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.10
We had not read five lines of this document before we predicted that this tacit acknowledgment of Satolli, as a representative of the “Holy See” to which not only Roman Catholics may appeal, but to which Protestants also may petition for redress of grievances, would be pointed to by Roman Catholics as a recognition of papal authority. In this prediction we were right. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.11
The first to call attention to it was “Father” Phelan himself, who says:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.12
The preachers some time ago were shouting to Mgr. Satolli from the Atlantic to the Pacific to get out of the country; and to stand upon the order of his going, but go at once. Now they are on their knees to him to stay just long enough to cut our head off!—The Western Watchman, May 7. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.13
The Northwestern Chronicle, of May 3, Archbishop Ireland’s official organ, regards the matter in much the same light. It says, after condemning “Father” Phelan’s utterances:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.14
Another thing is also observable in connection with the affair, and that is that the attacked parties themselves are glad to appeal to Archbishop Satolli for redress, which will unquestionably be given if it is in his power. So an apostolic delegate, even if he is an “eyetalian,” is not so bad a thing after all. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.15
It was this appealing for redress of grievances that laid the foundation of the papacy which banished religious freedom from the earth. The disputing bishops appealed to the Bishop of Rome to decide their disputes. Later the Bishop of Rome claimed the prerogative to decide such questions, and later still pointed to the appeals to him as an acknowledgment of his authority. Rome always encourages such appeals and then never forgets them when made. An illustration of this is seen in the controversy between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church. Every petition from the bishops of England to the Bishop of Rome is now used to show that the Church in England once recognized the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and that her failure to do so now is an evidence of apostasy. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.16
Protestants, if you are not prepared to accept popery from A to Z, then don’t petition the papal delegate. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.17
“‘Arrogant Contrariness’” American Sentinel 10, 20, p. 154.
THE Hartville (Mo.) Press, of April 25, contained this heartless editorial reference to the recent imprisonment of Seventh-day Adventists at Dayton, Tenn:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.1
Eight Seventh-day Adventists are imprisoned at Dayton, Tenn., for laboring on Sunday. This is right. When people become so they won’t be governed by the laws of their State they ought to migrate or at least be punished for their arrant contrariness. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.2
Fidelity to principles has always been regarded by the persecutor as “arrant contrariness.” Especially was this true of the early persecution of the Christians by the pagans. Pliny, the pagan governor of the Province of Bithynia, writes thus to the Emperor Trajan regarding the former’s attitude toward the Christians:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.3
I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not. If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threathenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confessions, I ordered them to be executed; for I did not doubt but, let their confessions be of any sort whatever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserted to be punished. AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.4
If the editor of the Hartville Press were called upon to obey a law in conflict with his conscience, we have that respect for him to believe that he would refuse to violate his conscience even in the face of the charge of “arrant contrariness.” AMS May 16, 1895, page 154.5
“The ‘Examiner,’ the [N. Y.] ‘Christians Advocate,’ and the Sabbath” American Sentinel 10, 20, p. 156.
THE Baptist Church discards infant baptism because it is not commanded by the Word of God, yet it observes the first day of the week as the Sabbath. This inconsistency is constantly getting Baptists into trouble. When the church demands a scriptural command for infant baptism from some church which adheres to the unscriptural practice, they are sure to be met with the challenge for a scriptural command for Sunday observance. Here is an instance taken from the New York Christian Advocate (Methodist) of April 25:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 156.1
The following is from the Examiner:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 156.2
“The late Thomas Cooper, of England, an eminent popular lecturer, who in mature life became a Christian and a Baptist, once explained the way in which he was led to adopt Baptist views. In conversation with a Christian woman, a Baptist, he said: ‘I have generally found that, whatever practices or beliefs there may be among the various Christian bodies, they have usually some text which, rightly or wrongly, is quoted to justify them; but I have never heard of any text which authorizes the old Romish custom of the christening of church bells.’ ‘Really,’ replied his friend, ‘that is a very simple matter. The christening of bells is authorized by the very next verse to the one which commands the christening of babies!’—a remark which set Thomas Cooper thinking, with the result above indicated.” AMS May 16, 1895, page 156.3
The Christian Advocate quotes the foregoing and follows it with this comment:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 156.4
Why this was published we can hardly imagine. Is there any person who supposes that all the practices or beliefs of Christians can be sustained by some positive text? Our Baptist friends would find great difficulty in finding a positive text in support of some of their beliefs. Without doubt there is no text commanding the christening of babies. Nor is there any commanding the substitution of the Lord’s day for the Sabbath. AMS May 16, 1895, page 156.5
The church dogma of Sunday sacredness is becoming a universal cudgel with which to smite him who would appeal to Scripture as the only authority for doctrine and practice. When a Protestant church appeals to Scripture against the unscriptural doctrines and practices of the papacy, the papist seizes the Sunday cudgel and cracks his Protestant disputant over the head with it, and forthwith he is silent. Then when a Protestant of one church, as in the foregoing instance, attempts to appeal to Bible truth against unbiblical traditions, the defender of tradition instantly seizes the Sunday cudgel and pounds his Protestant brother into silence. AMS May 16, 1895, page 156.6
The fact is, the Sunday institution stands as the ensign of tradition and ritualism, while the Sabbath stands for the Bible and Jesus Christ. AMS May 16, 1895, page 156.7
“The Bible Day and the Meeting at Troas” American Sentinel 10, 20, p. 159.
A READER asks this question: “What reason have you for saying that the meeting of Acts 20:6 was held on Saturday night and that a part of Sunday was spent in traveling?” AMS May 16, 1895, page 159.1
The Bible day, unlike the modern day, begins at the setting of the sun. That this is true is shown by several texts of Scripture. In the first chapter of Genesis we find repeatedly the expression, “The evening and the morning were the first day,” “The evening and the morning were the second day,” etc. This alone would of course not be conclusive, though it is suggestive. But in Leviticus 23:32 we find the express command: “From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.” That the “even” here referred to was marked by the setting of the sun is evident from Mark 1:32: “And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were disease,” etc. The connection shows that the setting of the sun marked the close of the Sabbath, which, according to the commandment, was and is, the seventh day. AMS May 16, 1895, page 159.2
The texts cited establish clearly the fact that the Bible day commences with the even, that is, at the setting of the sun. The meeting at Troas was on the first day of the week. It was likewise an evening meeting, for “there were many lights in the upper chamber.” AMS May 16, 1895, page 159.3
But, according to the Bible, the evening of the first day of the week is not what we call Sunday evening, but what corresponds to our Saturday evening. This conclusion is unavoidable. It follows therefore that “a part of Sunday was spent, by Paul and his company, in traveling,” for the record is, that after healing the young man who fell from the window, Paul “talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” While of Luke and his companions we read: “We went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.” AMS May 16, 1895, page 159.4
The only reasonable conclusion to be arrived at from a careful reading of the whole account of the visit to Troas, is that arriving at Troas early on Sunday, Paul and is company spent an entire week there. At the close of the Sabbath, Luke and his companions sailed for Assos, but Paul tarried over night, held a farewell meeting with the church at Troas, and then went on foot to Assos, where he met his companions who had made the much longer journey by water. The twentieth chapter of Acts affords not even a hint of Sunday sacredness, but rather the contrary. AMS May 16, 1895, page 159.5
The view here presented is not peculiar to observers of the seventh day, but is identical with that presented by Conybeare and Howson, in their “Life and Epistle of the Apostle Paul,” so far as the time of the Troas meeting and the Bible day are concerned. AMS May 16, 1895, page 159.6
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 20, p. 160.
THE Republican, of Dayton, Tenn., says that a bill was introduced into the legislature of that State on the 27th ult., “to amend section 2289 of the Code so as to provide that persons observing Saturday as the Sabbath shall not be liable to penalty for working on Sunday.” Such a bill would of course relieve the persecuted Adventists for the time being, were it to become a law; but it would not settle the principle at stake. Section 2289 of the Code of Tennessee ought to be repealed, as should every similar law in every State in the Union and of every country in the world. The whole principle of Sunday legislation is wrong. AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.1
THAT we are living in an age of moral degeneracy was strikingly illustrated recently in the city of Brooklyn. AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.2
The bookkeeper of a wealthy club was found to be a defaulter to a large amount, and was criminally prosecuted. AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.3
A petition, signed by a large number of respectable persons, was presented to the trial-judge, praying for leniency for the embezzler. Among the reasons urged for clemency was this:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.4
He was surrounded by many temptations; he was actuated by a desire, so common in our modern life, to live on a scale equal to that of the gentlemen with whom he associated daily, and to raise and educate his children as did his neighbors. AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.5
The Christian Advocate, of this city, refers to the facts stated as “an illustration of the widespread decline of principle,” and says: “More sympathy is now shown for thieves and defaulters than admiration for simple, old-fashioned honesty.” AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.6
The Advocate’s remarks is quite true, but is not that paper partly responsible for the moral degeneracy which substitutes custom for the moral law and places a higher value upon the applause of men than the favor of God? For instance, in the matter of Sunday-keeping, very many religious papers and ministers of the gospel acknowledge that they have no better authority for the observance of the first day of the week than custom. They would keep the day commanded by God, but by so doing they would lose caste and influence. Are not the cases, if not parallel, at least akin? The defaulter breaks the eighth commandment that he may appear well, while the others break the fourth commandment that they may stand well, be popular and avoid the self-denial incident to being out of joint with the practices of society at large. Is not the principle the same? AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.7
“Georgia at It Again” American Sentinel 10, 20, p. 160.
A SPECIAL telegram announces that J. Q. Allison, a Seventh-day Adventist of Douglas County, Ga., has been arrested for working on Sunday. He is to be tried this week. Mr. Allison, if convicted, will, according to the Georgia statute, “be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars, imprisonment not to exceed six months, to work in the chain-gang on the public works, or on such other works as the county authorities may employ the chain-gang, not to exceed twelve months, and any one or more of these punishments may be ordered in the discretion of the judge.” AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.1
In case a fine is imposed, Section 4582 of the Georgia Code makes the following provisions for its disposal:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.2
All moneys arising from fines imposed for offenses, the gist of which consists in their being committed on the Sabbath day, shall be paid to the ordinary of the county, to be by him distributed for the purpose of establishing and promoting Sabbath-schools in the county. AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.3
In case the convicted party refuses to pay fines, or in case he is sentenced to the chain-gang. Section 4814 provides:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.4
In all cases where persons are convicted of misdemeanor, and sentenced to work in the chain-gang on the public works, or public roads, or when such persons are confined in jail for non-payment of fines imposed for such misdemeanor, the ordinary of the county, and where there is a board of commissioners of roads and revenues of the counties, then said heard of commissioners, and in those counties where there is a county judge, then the mid county judge, where such conviction was had, or where such convicts may be confined, may place such convicts, in the county or elsewhere, to work upon such public works of the county, in chain-gangs, or otherwise, or hire out such convicts, upon such terms and restrictions as may subserve the ends of justice, and place such convicts under such guards as may be necessary for their safe keeping. AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.5
In case of “insurrection” (which would doubtless include a refusal to work in the chain-gang on the Sabbath), Section 4821 provides:— AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.6
Whenever any convict or convicts now confined, or hereafter to be confined, in the penitentiary of this State, or member or members of the chain-gang now confined, or hereafter to be confined in the penitentiary of this State, or wherever else employed as such, shall be guilty of insurrection or attempt at insurrection, such convict or convicts, or member or members of the chain-gang, shall, upon trial and conviction in the Supreme Court of the county in which the crime is committed, be deemed guilty of a capital offense, and punished with death, or such other punishment as the judge in his discretion may indict. AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.7
Thus is appears that Mr. Allison is facing as a possibility, first, a thousand-dollar fine; second, six months’ imprisonment; third, the chain-gang; fourth, all three combined; fifth, he faces the possibility of being sold to the highest bidder, to some contractor, and in either case whether in the chain-gang of the State or the private contractor, should be refuse to work on the Sabbath, as he surely would, he “may be punished with death”! AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.8
The State of Georgia is not in Russia; it is in the southeastern part of the United States, and professed Protestant churches are behind this barbarous Sunday law. AMS May 16, 1895, page 160.9