The American Sentinel 10
January 24, 1895
“A Courageous Protest” American Sentinel 10, 4, pp. 25, 26.
THE New York Presbytery at its last meeting was the scene of a struggle between truth and error, between one man and a multitude, which vividly recalls the historic description of Martin Luther’s experience at the Diet of Worms. AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.1
The occasion of the struggle was the introduction of resolutions indorsing Dr. Parkhurst’s well-known methods of reform. Steps to this end had been taken at the preceding meeting, but Rev. Francis P. Mullally, D.D., had vigorously opposed them as contrary to the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, and contrary to the gospel; and inasmuch as most of the members of the Presbytery had already left the meeting, the matter was postponed until the next meeting. Following the postponement of the matter the daily press announced that the New York Presbytery had failed to indorse Dr. Parkhurst’s reform methods. This enraged the members, as it brought upon them the denunciation of the church crusade, which is in a fever of enthusiasm over the work of Dr. Parkhurst. Then followed published statements from the members of the Presbytery in which Dr. Mullally was shamefully abused. AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.2
In the meantime Dr. Mullally was not idle. He mailed to each member a statement of his position with quotations from the constitution of the church, expressly forbidding it to take action upon any but ecclesiastical questions, with arguments against the proposed action, based on the jurisdiction of the Church of Christ. The agitation of the matter filled the assembly room at the regular meeting of the Presbytery held Jan. 14. As an instance indicating the temper of the assembly, when the moderator had announced the order of business for the day, and before he could finish his sentence, the aforetime dignified clerk of the meeting jumped excitedly to his feet and moved to make the matter of indorsing Dr. Parkhurst the first matter of business instead of the last, which motion was carried with a thundering affirmative. AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.3
This much of an introduction is necessary to explain why the assembly room was crowded last week, and to give the reader an idea of the temper of the audience which the doctor faced when he arose to oppose the resolutions. AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.4
Dr. Lullally stands six feet four inches high, with broad shoulders and a voice in proportion with his powerful frame; but better than all, he had the consciousness of possessing the truth, and the courage of his convictions, which enabled him to look with a steady eye into the faces of his audience whose only expression was that of mingled pity and disgust. AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.5
Dr. Mullally began his address by showing from the minutes of the last General Assembly that members of the New York Presbytery who were present before him had expressed at that time, touching other questions, sentiments in favor of the very same principle for which he was contending. He also read from the church constitution which explicitly confines the jurisdiction of the church to ecclesiastical questions, and then summarily but logically disposed of the claim that Dr. Parkhurst’s work involved morality and was therefore within the scope of the Christian minister and within the realm of the legitimate work of the Presbytery; after which he continued as follows:—[Reproduced by Dr. Mullally for the SENTINEL by request. Italicized by the Editor.] AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.6
“The end of the Church is regeneration, not reform, to resurrect, not merely to embalm the spiritually dead, not to stay the process of corruption, but to give a new transforming life. AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.7
“The only means appointed to the Church, and which it is competent for her to use, is the Word of God; but Dr. Parkhurst’s appeal is to the sword of the civil magistrate. AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.8
“There are but three opinions touching the nature of Church power,—the Erastian, the Romish, and the Evangelical. The first makes the Church the mere agent of the State; the second makes the Church the substitute for Christ, and teaches that she may do or declare anything which Christ could do or declare were he still here in the flesh; the third holds that Christ is the head of the Church, that without him acting in her, she is a headless, impotent corpse, and that he exercises his headship only by his Word. Hence, when this stops, the Church must stop. If this Presbytery indorses the reform work of Dr. Parkhurst, it will be imitating Rome and assuming an authority as the substitute of Christ, when the legitimate function of the Church, as a Church, is only to voice the mind of Christ, as revealed in the Scriptures. AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.9
“But I object to the proposed resolutions on another ground. In reference to this, I will observe the utmost delicacy and reserve. Nor is it necessary to enter into detail or description, even if such a course were permissible in open court. The very gentleman who has zealously urged the taking up of this matter out of its order on the docket said, after the close of our last meeting, in the hearing of several brethren, that no member of the Presbytery approved Dr. Parkhurst’s detective work. The member alluded to is our permanent clerk, and ought to know whereof he affirmed. I content myself with saying, that in view of Dr. Parkhurst’s methods, this Presbytery cannot identify itself with him in his reform enterprise without virtually accepting and approving the pernicious principle that we may do evil that good may come, or, that the end justifies the means. AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.10
“My third objection is, that the action proposed would be utterly inconsistent with the overture for organic union with our Church, made to the Southern Presbyterian Church, by our last General Assembly. The distinctive characteristic of the Southern Church is, fidelity to, and insistence upon, the importance of the legislation of our confession touching the purview of judicatorial jurisdiction; and the adoption of these resolutions by the large and influential Presbytery of New York, will widen the breach between the two churches, and put back their union at least a hundred years.” AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.11
And now, that the reader may get an idea of the character of the speeches made against Dr. Mullally’s logical, scriptural, Protestant, protest, we print two speeches characteristic of the arguments(?) adduced. Dr. Henry M. Field, editor of the Evangelist, a leading Presbyterian paper of this city, said:— AMS January 24, 1895, page 25.12
I do think that we owe something to ourselves...., we are told, was pointed ... to the streets of Florence as the man who had been in .... Dr. Parkhurst has been down into ... to drag up some of the poor unfortunates from it. I knew that at the beginning of his work a great many clergymen passed by on the other side. But his work was necessary, and it was splendidly down. I asked Commissioner ..., the only honest police commissioner—whether Dr. Parkhurst’s work was needed, and he replied, “Dr. Parkhurst did exactly right.” [What an argument!] AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.1
I say that Dr. Parkhurst not only ... within his duty, but that never did he perform his duty so well as in this. He has done more to purify the city of New York than all the rest of us put together. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.2
This childish attempt at argument, by an editor of a representative Presbyterian paper, was greeted with loud applause on the part of the gray-haired and proverbially conservative members of the Presbytery, as was also the following speech by Dr. Shiland:—Christ went among publicans and sinners to bring them under the influence of his gospel. we must not forget that. I may not approve of all that Dr. Parkhurst has done, but I believe that his work should have a monument higher than the Egyptian obelisk in the Park. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.3
It would be indelicate, as Dr. Mullally intimated, to refer to some of Dr. Parkhurst’s methods for the purpose of contrasting them with the association of our Saviour with publicans and sinners and his methods of saving them, by way of replying to Dr. Shiland. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.4
At the conclusion of the discussion, the following resolutions were put to vote, and received a roar of “ayes,” while the negative received Dr. Mullally’s single but firm, clear, resonant “no”— AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.5
Resolved, That the Presbytery of New York express the gratitude for, and its pride to, the persistent, noble and successful efforts of our fellow-Presbyter, Rev. Charles H. Parkhurst, D.D., in the interest of greatly needed municipal reform. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.6
Resolved, That we rejoice in the success which he has had in arousing the Christian young men of the city to a realizing sense of their moral and religious duties as citizens, and in binding them together in efforts for the purification of our civil and social life. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.7
Resolved. That we recognize the gospel of Christ as the supreme remedy for every form of evil, and the Church of Christ as the agency by which the world is to be regenerated and saved, and, therefore, we believe that the moral teachings of Christ must be applied to every sphere of life, and that the Church should bear her testimony for righteousness and purity in all human affairs. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.8
We heartily commend Dr. Parkhurst for the faithful, heroic testimony which he has borne. We thank God for the favor which has made his efforts for reform successful. And we implore God’s blessing upon them, that they may be permanent and completely triumphant. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.9
Immediately upon the passage of the resolutions, Dr. Mullally entered a formal, written protest involving the points of his address which will be recorded on the minutes of the meeting. After the protest was entered the moderator, Dr. Robert R. Booth, who by his impartial rulings and respectful attention to Dr. Mullally’s speech and protest evinced the only sympathy for his position, then asked if it was desired to enter the customary reply to the protest. The question was answered by a chorus of disdainful “noes.” One Presbyter added, “It answers itself,” which was followed by loud laughter. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.10
We will not have space in this issue to comment upon these resolutions. Suffice it to say that they completely unite the Presbytery of New York, both as to functions and methods, to the civil government of New York; and besides, they indorse the immoral methods of Dr. Parkhurst, and petition for the blessing of God on the immoral methods and the unholy union. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.11
The writer has witnessed many scenes involving the fall of the Protestant churches from the exalted platform of Protestantism to the theory and practice of papal methods, but never one so complete and impressive. Verily the apostate Protestant “image” of the papacy, as predicted in chapters 13 and 14 of Revelation, is fast preparing to accomplish its predicted work. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.12
“Preposterous Claims of the Papacy” American Sentinel 10, 4, p. 26.
THE Roman Catholic press of the United States, evidently by preconcerted action, is attempting to convince Americans that they are indebted to the Roman Catholic Church for religious freedom. This is a part of a great scheme to hypnotize Americans until the Catholic Church gets in a position to strike the final, fatal blow to crush religious freedom. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.1
The Monitor, a Catholic paper claiming to have the largest circulation of any religious paper on the Pacific Coast, concludes an article entitled, “Religious Liberty,” with the following ridiculous claim: AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.2
And it remains a supreme and significant fact that we owe all the blessings of religious freedom to the influence of a Catholic nation [France] and the teaching of a prelate [Bishop Fenelon] of the church of Rome. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.3
As silly as is this statement, there is something more silly, and that something is a Protestantism that believes just that kind of nonsense, and is fawning and flattering Romanists while rebuking as a bigot, him who fearlessly exposes the wiles of Rome and holds the “mother of harlots,” drunk with the blood of the saints, rigidly to the logic of her claim that “Rome never changes.” AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.4
Were it not that there are so many non-Catholics who accept such nonsensical assertions, the SENTINEL would not stoop to notice them. But the situation demands that they be refuted with facts. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.5
In refutation of the statement that America borrowed her religious liberty principles from the French nation, it is enough to state that there never has been a separation of Church and State in France like that inaugurated by the founders of the American Constitution; and if there had been, it would have been accomplished in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, rather than by its aid. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.6
If any wish to read of the attitude of Roman Catholic France to the principle of religious freedom, let them read the history of Roman Catholic France. Let them read of the fiendish slaughter of Albigenses; the satanic torture of the Waldenses; and the unutterable crimes committed against the Huguenots; all of which were instigated by Roman Catholic popes, engineered by French Roman Catholic rulers, and enacted by French Roman Catholic soldiers. Roman Catholic France the author of religious freedom? No, no more than was the devil the author of the sermon on the mount. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.7
The second claim, that America is indebted to Bishop Fenelon, a French prelate, for its principles of religious freedom, is equally absurd. Fenelon, according to the Monitor, wrote his religious liberty ideas in 1745, but the Monitor ought to know that Martin Luther and the Augsburg Confession, more than two centuries before, had reannounced to the world the primitive Christian truth of separation of Church and State. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.8
It would be indeed amusing if it did not involve serious considerations, to see the frantic efforts of Roman Catholic authorities in America to manufacture for themselves a certificate of character. After passing all the popes, cardinals, and archbishops in the whole history of the church, they finally claim to have found a bishop in France who was opposed to burning men’s bodies to save their souls. Eureka! Let Americans calm their fears; the Roman Catholic Church is the author and conservator of religious freedom in America and the world. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.9
Never mind the incessant thunderings of infallible popes against religious freedom; never mind the warning of more than a thousand years of papal torture, inflicted upon dissenters by sword and flame, dungeon and rack; never mind all this, we have found a bishop in France who was opposed to proselyting by the sword. Never mind the fact that for holding these views, he was charged by his brother prelates with being a Protestant, never mind all this, just keep your mind on the thought that America owes its liberties in religion to the Roman Catholic Church. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.10
We just now think of an imaginary parallel. It is like the late Jesse James asserting that he was the author and conservator of public safety, and as a reason why everybody ought to believe it, and elect him president of the United States, he should refer to a dead second cousin who never killed anybody. Americans, don’t be fooled by this religious liberty song of the papists. It is composed and sung exclusively for Americans. Whenever it is sung, meet it with a dirge composed from the groans of tortured Protestant men and the wails of outraged Protestant women. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.11
“A National Reform Assumption” American Sentinel 10, 4, pp. 26, 27.
ONE of the assumptions of National Reform, and of governmental religion under any name, is that by a profession of Christianity a nation is made better. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.1
In the late New Castle convention it was repeatedly said that “our officers ought to be Christian men,” and that “then we should have no Lexow Committees and no such revelations of corruption as those in New York that so recently shocked the moral sense not only of the United States but of the world.” AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.2
Of course the idea was that under the administration of Christian men, corruption would not exist. This is quite true. If it were possible to have a government carried on by Christian men, it would of necessity be honestly administered; for it is the Christian rule to “provide things honest in the sight of all men.” A dishonest man is not a Christian man; and this applies not only in private life but in official position as well. Every Christian must take his religion into public office to the extent that it must make him an honest man; but not in the sense of using political power to further the ends of his creed or church, or of using political power to enforce his religion upon others. The very foundation principle of Christianity forbids any such use of civil power. The one all-comprehensive rule which must govern the real Christian in all his dealings and relations with his fellowmen is, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” And this forbids all use of official position or of civil power for the propagation of religion or of irreligion; for no man wants the power of the State used to disseminate views with which he is not in harmony; hence no man has, according to the Golden Rule, any right to use such power to propagate views that others do not believe. AMS January 24, 1895, page 26.3
But while it is true that really Christian men would administer a government honestly, is a profession of Christianity by the government any guarantee of Christian administration?—Certainly not. Everybody knows that dishonest men will profess anything for pecuniary advantage. To make a profession of religion a qualification for holding office is only to put a premium upon hypocrisy, and to multiply S. C. P. Breckinridges in the church. He was a man prominent in religious circles, a leader in his church, the father of one of the Sunday bills that has been before Congress during the past five years, and a lecturer on social purity; and yet at the time violating every principle of Christianity, living a life of deliberate, persistent sin; a veritable moral leper. And his is not an isolated case. How many embezzlers and defaulters as well as corrupt civil officials are members of churches, superintendents of Sunday schools, etc. Everybody knows that the list of such offenders is painfully long, and that a profession of Christianity is no guarantee of honesty. Among the twelve apostles was one Judas, and the proportion of evil men professing godliness has certainly never been less, except as persecution may at times have burned the dress out of the church, leaving only the genuine; and it is certainly very much greater whenever a premium is placed upon mere profession. AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.1
We have only to go to Russia to see the practical workings of a government in which a profession of religion is an essential to office holding. Russia professes a religion, the “Christian” religion, and office holders in that country must be members of the Orthodox Church. But are they honest? Is the government honestly administered?—Certainly not. It is notorious that Russian judges are bribetakers, that Russian tax collectors are thieves, and that Russian officials, almost from the highest to the lowest, are extortioners. AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.2
It follows, therefore, that a mere profession of religion does no make men honest, but mere profession is all that any human government can possibly secure; nay, more; the mere any government has to do with religion, the more any government does to enforce religious profession, the more of false profession there will be. Therefore the greatest service that human government can possibly render true religion is to let it absolutely alone. Government can foster religious formalism and hypocrisy, but not genuine Christianity. AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.3
France, just preceding the great Revolution, affords a striking illustration of a government controlled by men making a profession of religion for worldly gain. The sequel was the Reign of Terror. Men seeing the falsity of governmental religion, and revolting against Sunday, extortion, and all kinds of ecclesiastical corruption, went to the other extreme and repudiated all religion. They said, If this is religion we want none of it. The trouble arose form a failure to distinguish between Christianity and that which was called Christianity. But who was to blame? Where but to the Church is the world expected to look for true Christianity? And is it not natural that it should accept as Christianity that which the Church says is Christianity? The Reign of Terror is continually pointed to as an awful exhibition of the effects of infidelity; it is also an awful example of the results of false profession and of governmental religion. AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.4
“Enforced Idleness” American Sentinel 10, 4, p. 27.
THE new Constitution of the State of New York, which went into force the first day of this January, has a provision which establishes practically the keeping in idleness of the State prisoners. Of this provision, William R. Huntington, D.D., Rector of Grace Church, this city, writing on the eve of the late election, justly remarks as follows:— AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.1
It so happens that just at present there is impending over the prisoners of the State of New York a calamity to which injustice, ignorance and inhumanity may be said to be contributing in about equal portions. The people are presently to be asked to approve a constitutional provision—in other words, to make it the law for twenty years to come—that the inmates of our prisons shall be kept idle, for fear, forsooth, that their engagement in useful and remunerative occupations may injure the market for free labor. AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.2
I suppose there is no question among political economists of repute that this is bad political economy; I suppose there is no question among the masters of ethics that this is bad morality; I suppose there is not question among students of the New Testament that this is bad religion; and yet, it must needs be put into the same lump with other measures plainly desirable lest the labor vote should be offended. Could civil cowardice on the part of educated men much further go? ... AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.3
The practical working of the thing will be that hundreds, and perhaps thousands of criminals, who only hope of reformation, humanly speaking, lies in their befog kept usefully occupied, will be thrown into an enforced idleness, sure to drive some of them to madness, some in suicide, and some to the patient devising either of methods of escape or of plots of revenge. AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.4
Can a State which knowingly consents to such a scheme for putting convicts to the torture—for that is just what it is—can a State, I say, which knowingly consents to such a scheme as this, look the King in the eye, and expect to hear him say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father”? AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.5
This is sound doctrine from beginning to end. And yet there is a demand made throughout this whole nation, and Dr. Huntingdon is a party to it, that the whole people shall be required by State and National law to submit to idleness a whole day in every week—that is, every Sunday in the year. It is true that this does not propose to put all those in prison-idleness; they are to be allowed to be at large if they will submit to it. But if they will not submit to this, then they are to be put in prison, and to be required to spend the idleness there. But the principle is the same, whether the enforced idleness be in prison or out of prison—and especially so when it inevitably follows in prison if it is not submitted to out of prison. AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.6
Enforced idleness, whether in prison or out of prison, whether on every day or only on Sunday, is bad political economy; it is bad morality; it is bad religion. And it is only injustice, ignorance, and inhumanity that contributes to it. And how can a State, or an individual, that knowingly consents to such a scheme as this, look the King in the eye and expect to hear him say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father”? AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.7
And yet Seventh-day Adventists everywhere are denounced, persecuted, fined, and imprisoned, for steadfastly refusing to sanction, or knowingly consent to, this same evil thing of enforced idleness. They are threatened with outlawry, for their refusal to accept this principle of bad political economy, bad morality, and bad religion, or to join in this contribution of injustice, ignorance, and inhumanity. They are hated and persecuted by professed Christians for refusing to consent to a scheme which forbids their looking the King in the eye with any expectation of hearing him say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father.” AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.8
Let it be so. The Seventh-day Adventists are right in this thing. Let the State commit suicide if it will, by enforcing bad political economy; but the Seventh-day Adventists and all others are right who refuse to sanction the proceeding. Let courts which assume the championship of a bad morality, aid in the suicide of the State by enforcing bad political economy in the interests of had morality, if they will; the Seventh-day Adventists and all others are right who refuse to respect such decisions of such courts. And let professed religionists support a bad religion by demanding such decisions from such courts to the death of the State, if they will; the Seventh-day Adventists and all others are right in refusing forever any respect to any such procedure on the part of any such religionists. It is better to be denounced, and persecuted, and fined, and imprisoned, and outlawed, because of good religion and good morality, which in themselves are a sufficient preservative of the State, than to have the highest honors of the State, and at the same time be working the certain ruin of self, society, and the State, by enforcing or respecting a bad religion, on account of a bad morality, in support of a bad political economy. AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.9
Let the Seventh-day Adventists and all others forever refuse to consent to a scheme which forbids their looking the King in the face with the expectation of hearing him say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father.” And let all the people say, Amen? AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.10
“A Consistent Baptist” American Sentinel 10, 4, pp. 27, 28.
BY permission, we publish the following from a private letter received from Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author, with other works, of “The Baptist Church Directory,” a standard work among Baptists. Dr. Hiscox, as the reader will see, applies the great principle of religious freedom for which Baptists have contended so nobly, to the compulsory Sunday observance epidemic. It is difficult to find a person who is not avowedly in favor of religious liberty, but too many stop short in their logic. Especially is this true when the question of prosecuting Seventh-day Adventists and others for laboring on Sunday, is under discussion. Dr. Hiscox, like a consistent Baptist, consistently, scripturally, and courageously applies the principle to Sunday laws as well as to other matters:— AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.1
The “Baptist position,” in respect to the relation of religious and secular affairs, is this; there should be no union of Church and State, but an entire separation between them in all matters pertaining to the administration of religious affairs. They represent two kingdoms, with distinct spheres, and diverse functions, which cannot be united without injury to both. The State has no right of authority or of dictation in matters of faith and worship, which are questions of conscience and principle that lie between the individual soul and God. The State is bound to protect its citizens in the free exercise of their religious faith, without harm or hindrance, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. Christians should be good citizens, supporting the government which protects them, honoring the rulers and obeying the laws under which they live, so long as such laws are not contrary to the Word of God. The Church should sustain no organic relation to the State, and receive no patronage or support from it, since to do that would imply the right of supervision and dictation by the State. The support of religion belongs to those who profess it, and to allow fellowship and accept patronage from the State, never fails to secularize the spirit and to corrupt the purity of the Church. The civil authorities have no right to enforce or demand any form of faith, any manner of worship, nor yet to establish by law or compel the observance of a Sabbath, or any religious institution. It has no right to force conformity, or to punish dissent. Baptists to-day are loyal to their traditions through all the past. What they have demanded, labored for, and suffered to secure, is not toleration, but liberty; liberty in all concerns of conscience and of faith. The enactment of civil laws for the control or the curtailment of religious liberty, or for the infliction of civil penalties for non-conformity and the exercise of religious liberty, is wrong, unjust, contrary to the spirit of the gospel and to the genius of Christianity. It is also in conflict with the spirit of the age, and that more intelligent and beneficent civilization which Christianity has developed. AMS January 24, 1895, page 27.2
We respectfully submit this consistent Baptist utterance to those Baptist papers which are defending the prosecution of seventh-day observers for refusing to observe the State Sabbath, and which are criticising the Examiner for denouncing these persecutions. AMS January 24, 1895, page 28.1
“Satolli on Education” American Sentinel 10, 4, pp. 28, 29.
AT a reception recently tendered Monsignor Satolli in this city, the pope’s delegate presented a paper on education. The following are quotations from the published address:— AMS January 24, 1895, page 28.1
Education of the young is as important a safeguard of the nation as are courts and armies. It is of great moment, then, that we should understand in what true education must consist. AMS January 24, 1895, page 28.2
In what does this educational safeguard consist? Let the delegate reply:— AMS January 24, 1895, page 28.3
The young should be educated both in mind and heart, according to the constitution of the State, according to the great principles of morality and according to a true religious spirit. AMS January 24, 1895, page 28.4
But what are the “great principles of morality,” and in what does the “true religious spirit” consist? Here it is:— AMS January 24, 1895, page 28.5
I will add that it is well that young men should have from their earliest days, a just idea of what the pope is, how lofty his dignity, how great his authority, how beneficial his actions. His dignity and his power come directly from Christ, and the exercise of this power can only be for the benefit, religious and social, intellectual and moral, temporal and eternal, of humanity. AMS January 24, 1895, page 28.6
It therefore follows that the safeguard of the United States lies in teaching the young that Jesus Christ has delegated his power on earth to the pope, and that the exercise of this power is for the benefit, religious and social, intellectual and moral, temporal and eternal, of humanity. But we know that to teach the youth this is to undermine the safeguards of society. We know that the exercise of this “great” “authority” of the pope has always been and ever will be the curse, religious and social, intellectual and moral, temporal and eternal, of humanity. AMS January 24, 1895, page 28.7
But the delegate anticipated dissenters, and remarked in this connection that— AMS January 24, 1895, page 29.1
One who cannot see or would venture to deny the justice of these considerations would merit no attention from reasonable and well-thinking men. AMS January 24, 1895, page 29.2
We cannot see the justice of these considerations and therefore venture to deny them; and although we may not “merit” attention, we are very certain we will erelong receive attention. AMS January 24, 1895, page 29.3
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 4, p. 30.
CHAMS. W. MILLER, a seventh-day observer of Wampum, Pa., informs us that he has recently been notified by a committee composed of a Presbyterian minister, J. C. Rukens, and a Methodist minister, G. B. Carr, to close his stationery and confection store on Sundays, and told that a violation of the command would be followed by his prompt arrest. It looks now as if Pennsylvania would join Massachusetts in introducing the Sunday-slavery crusade into the northern States. AMS January 24, 1895, page 30.1
THOSE who oppose our scriptural prediction of a general persecution for non-observance of the Sunday dogma, have always remarked that the previous persecutions were confined to States south of Mason and Dixon’s line, and were the result of local conditions. But we have always responded that the human heart is the same on both sides of the line, and that, at an early date, these persecutions would be seen in the North. We were not mistaken. AMS January 24, 1895, page 30.2
A GOOD illustration of the illogical and absurd religious test which some States require of witnesses as a qualification to give testimony, occurred recently in Tennessee, where a witness is required to believe in a God and in future rewards and punishments. A witness against the men who recently lynched six negroes in Tennessee, to escape testifying against the lynchers, boldly denied his belief in a God. His father testified that he had never before heard his son express atheistic sentiments. The judge after mature thought decided that the young man was lying and did believe in a God, and was therefore thoroughly qualified “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” and he was required to testify. Comment is unnecessary. AMS January 24, 1895, page 30.3
WHY is it that Roman Catholics point to the appointment and election of members of their church to the premiership of Germany and the presidency of Switzerland as a triumph of Catholicity over Protestantism?—Because it furnishes an opportunity for these papists to carry out the programme outlined by Pope Leo XIII., communicated in 1885 to the faithful in all lands, but especially in America. It furnishes an opportunity to “do all in their power to cause constitutions of States and legislation to be modeled in the principles of the true [Roman Catholic] church.” And when American citizens oppose this programme and attempt to prevent in America what Roman Catholic papers in this country declare to be a triumph of the papacy in Europe, this effort is denounced as persecution! Yea, verily, everything is persecution! Yea, verily, everything is persecution in the mind of the papist that interferes with the scheme of Rome to again dominate the world and punish heretics. AMS January 24, 1895, page 30.4