The American Sentinel 10
May 30, 1895
“The Georgia Courts and the Sunday Law” American Sentinel 10, 22, pp. 169, 170.
AN interesting question, though by no means a new one, has been raised by the case of J. Q. Allison, at Douglasville, Ga., an account of which is given elsewhere in this paper. AMS May 30, 1895, page 169.1
Mr. Allison produced a Bible in court and proposed to show from it his authority for holding that the seventh day is the Sabbath. But he was stopped by the judge, who told him: “That won’t do in this court.” “We allow every man his own religious opinions, but this is simply a civil law.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 169.2
Mr. Allison then read from Section 6, Article 1, of the constitution of Georgia, which is as follows:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 169.3
Perfect freedom of religious sentiment shall be, and the same is hereby secured, and no inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property, or prohibited from holding any public office or trust, on account of his religious opinion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the people. AMS May 30, 1895, page 169.4
Mr. Allison was interrupted by the court before he had finished reading this section, and was informed that the only question before the court was, whether he had worked on the first day of the week or not, at the time charged in the indictment. And in this connection the judge said:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 169.5
I would not interfere with you in any way in the enjoyment of your religion; this is simply a law of the State, and we are bound thereby. The State could say that you should keep Wednesday or Thursday or every other Thursday, that it would be a crime to work on every other Wednesday or every other Thursday, and we would be bound to obey that law. AMS May 30, 1895, page 169.6
This statement by the judge would be true if the law were indeed a merely civil regulation based upon civil reasons; but according to decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia, his statement is not true. The Supreme Court of that State has sustained Sunday laws upon distinctively religious grounds. And the reasons given could not by any possibility apply to Wednesday or Thursday or to every other Wednesday or Thursday. Moreover, the judge cannot find in American law anywhere an enforced civil holiday. The prohibition of secular labor and business on Sunday has absolutely no other basis except the supposed sacred character of the day. No other reason could possibly exist for forbidding a man to plow in his own field on Sunday; and Judge Janes can ascertain for himself that this is the ground upon which the Supreme Court of Georgia has sustained the Sunday law. AMS May 30, 1895, page 169.7
In 1852 Judge Lumpkin, of Georgia, said: “All agree that to the well-being of society stated intervals of rest are absolutely necessary. We should not tempt mankind, therefore, to yield obedience to municipal arrangements which overlook and disregard the moral law of the great Jehovah, who, from the smoking top of Mount Sinai, proclaimed to all the world, ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; in it thou shalt not do any work.’” 1 AMS May 30, 1895, page 169.8
This is a direct acknowledgment of the religious character of Sunday, and likewise of the laws which sustain it, and the same could never be true of Wednesday or Thursday, for nobody claims that the fourth commandment has any reference to those days. Again, as recently as 1871, Judge Lochrane said that in presuming the law of Kansas to be the same as that of his own State (Georgia) in this regard, because the contrary view would suppose the people of Kansas to have annulled the Decalogue and to have permitted by law the disregard of Christian obligation; and not only to have forgotten, but violated the injunction, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy; in it thou shalt do no manner of work.” 2 AMS May 30, 1895, page 169.9
Again, in the same year (1871) it was held by the same court 3 that the power to enact a Sunday law was collected from the general powers delegated to maintain good order, but added: “The power is a very high prerogative, and is supported by the principle involved in the preservation of morals and the duties of citizens upon the Lord’s day.” In 49 Ga., 436, Bass vs. Irvin, it is said that “the code denominates if [the first day of the week] the Lord’s day, and as the Lord’s day, all courts and magistrates are to consider it.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.1
It is quite evident from these authorities that while the Sunday law of Georgia is a “civil” law in the sense that it has a place upon the statute books of the State and is enforced by the civil courts, it is not more civil than would be any other law requiring the observance of any other religious institution. The terms “Lord’s day,” and “Sabbath” occur no less than eight times in the several sections of the Georgia code referring to Sunday, while in Section 4582 it is provided that “all moneys arising from fines 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.” This language is conclusive as to the character and intent of the law; it has no other purpose than to honor Sunday as a religious institution. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.2
It will be observed that under this Sunday law there are certain offenses, “the gist of which consists in their being committed on the Sabbath day.” The gist of these offenses is not that they invade the rights of other people, or even that they injure the person himself who commits them, nor that they are licentious nor that they disturb the public peace, but that they are violations of “the Sabbath.” And yet the courts of the State refuse to allow one accused of Sabbath-breaking to show from the Bible which day is the Sabbath, telling him that “that [the Bible] won’t do in this court;” “we allow every man his own religious opinions, but this is simply a civil law.” And so, and in exactly the same sense, would be a law requiring all parents to have their children sprinkled, as was once the case in Massachusetts, and that too, for the protection of morals. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.3
Religious persecution has always been defended on exactly the same grounds. Robert Baird, the church historian, says:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.4
Religious persecution has always been defended on exactly the same grounds. Robert Baird, the church historian, says:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.5
The rulers of Massachusetts put the Quakers to death and banished “Antinomians” and “Anabaptists,” not because of their religious tenets, but because of their violation of civil laws. This is the justification they pleaded, and it was the best they could make. Miserable excuse! But just so it is: wherever there is such a union of Church and State, heresy and heretical practices are apt to become violations of the civil code, and are punished no longer as errors in religion, but infractions of the laws of the land. So the defenders of the Inquisition have always spoken and written in justification of that awful and most iniquitous tribunal.—“Religion in America,” p. 94. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.6
It is in precisely this way that Cardinal Gibbons defends the Inquisition. He says:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.7
The Spanish Inquisition was erected by King Ferdinand, less from motives of religious zeal than from human policy.... It must be remembered that in those days, heresy, especially if outspoken, was regarded not only as an offense against religion, but also as a crime against the State, and was punished accordingly.—Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 292, 293. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.8
It is the same to-day and among so-called Protestants. Rev. Robert Patterson, D.D., says in defense of Sunday laws:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.9
It is the right of the State to protect by law such a fundamental support of government. This attack on the Sabbath is treason against the very foundations of government. As such let it be resisted by every American citizen. The American Sabbath is essential to American liberty, to our Republic and to God’s religion.—“The American Sabbath,” by the Rev. Robert Patterson, D.D.; Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.10
This is only putting into slightly different phrase the papal “argument” in justification of the Inquisition. It is neither better nor worse in the one case than in the other. In the days of the Inquisition the Roman Catholic faith was regarded as the bulwark of social order, and therefore to be protected by civil law; now, the Sunday institution is declared by professed Protestants to be essential to good government, and so to be jealously guarded by the State. In these Sunday-law prosecutions, history is simply repeating itself. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.11
Jerome, the subject of our illustration, was not burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church any more than are Seventh-day Adventists in Georgia and Tennessee imprisoned and sent to the chain-gang by the so-called Protestant churches whose influence created and sustains the Sunday laws. The Roman Catholic Church simply declared Jerome a heretic, and as such he was regarded as an enemy of the State; and our illustration shows him being led to the stake, not by ecclesiastics, not by officers of the church, but by the civil authorities—officers of the State—just as Adventists are to-day imprisoned and driven in chain-gangs by authority of the State, but none the less in obedience to the behest of professed Protestants. The religious sentiment of the community was then crystallized into civil law precisely as it is to-day and that not for the protection of civil rights, but for the enforcement of religious dogma. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.12
It was not pretended in this Allison case that anybody was interfered with in the least degree. There was no disturbance, no infringing upon the rights of others. The gist of Mr. Allison’s offense was the he worked on Sunday, the day which the State of Georgia has declared is the “Sabbath,” “the Lord’s day,” and which it has decreed must be kept “holy.” There is absolutely no civil element in it except the fact that the day is intrenched in the civl law. A law requiring everybody to be baptized and to join a church would be civil in just the same sense as is this law requiring the observance of Sunday in the State of Georgia; and such a law would be no more in conflict with the constitution of that State than is the Sunday law. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.13
The assertion that Mr. Allison or anybody else is left perfectly free in religious matters under a Sunday law is false. How free would the Sunday-keepers of Georgia consider themselves if they were taxed one-sixth of their time for the benefit of Mr. Allison’s religion? AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.14
Moreover, the fact that Mr. Allison is in the minority does not alter the case one iota. Judge Parks, of Tennessee, has well said: “If there were only one of them he would be entitled not only to his honest belief, but to the exercise of that belief, so long as in so doing he did not interfere with some natural right of his neighbors.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.15
This is the touchstone to which all such laws and all such questions ought to be brought, namely, the equal rights of others. Does one man, by working on Sunday, thereby infringe the equal rights of another man to rest or to worship? If not—and he certainly does not—any law forbidding such work is simply an expression of intolerance and despotism, none the less intolerable, because instead of being the intolerance and despotism of one it is the intolerance and despotism of the majority. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.16
“Trial of J. Q. Allison” American Sentinel 10, 22, pp. 170, 171.
THIS trial, referred to in these columns last week, took place in the Superior Court at Douglasville, Ga., May 15, before Hon. C. G. Janes, Presiding Judge. W. T. Roberts, Solicitor General, appeared for the State. Mr. Allison conducted his own case. Two witnesses were sworn for the State, both of whom testified that they lived near Mr. Allison, and that they had seen him plowing in his field on Sunday, the 21st day of April, as charged in the indictment. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.1
Mr. Allison did not deny doing the work, but offered to show that it was not of a nature to disturb anybody, and that in fact nobody was disturbed thereby. Both the witnesses testified on direct examination that they would not have seen Mr. Allison at work had they not gone to the place where he was, on purpose to see him. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.2
Mr. Allison attempt to cross-examine the second witness, as follows:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.3
Q. How near is your place to mine? where does your land come up to it; your field? AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.4
A. I suppose it is a hundred yards, or something like that. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.5
Q. You worked there on the seventh day? AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.6
A. Yes, sir, I worked on Saturday. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.7
Mr. Allison. I want to prove whether I disturbed him, or whether I had complained about his disturbing me. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.8
The Court. Never mind about that; that has nothing to do with this case. The only question in the world is whether you worked on the first day of the week; that is the only question in the case; I mean, worked in your ordinary employment. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.9
The solicitor general then asked the witness two questions to establish the fact that Mr. Allison was working at his usual employment; after which the judge asked Mr. Allison if he had any statement to make. From this point onward we copy verbatim from the notes of the official stenographer:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.10
The Court. What statement do you want to make? AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.11
Mr. Allison. I want to show where I get the authority that the seventh day is the Sabbath. (The defendant had produced his Bible, as if to read.) AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.12
The Court. That won’t do in this court. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.13
Mr. Allison. I am not allowed to give the reasons? AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.14
The Court. No sir; we allow every man his own religious opinions, but this is simply a civil law. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.15
Mr. Allison. Will you allow me to read a piece from the constitution of Georgia? AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.16
The Court. If it applies to this case—any law of the State—if you want to read it. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.17
Mr. Allison. (Reading from the code.) “Freedom of Conscience.—All men have the natural and inalienable right to worship God each according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no human authority should in any case control or interfere with such right of conscience. Religious Opinions.—No inhabitant of this State shall be molested in person or property——“ AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.18
The Court. If you want to make any statement about the facts of this case, you can do so;—you have no lawyer to represent you:—if you do not want to, you need not do so, as to whether you did this work on this day. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.19
Mr. Allison. I work on the first day of the week, and rest the seventh day. I keep it. I do nothing but feed my mules and water them, and some such things. We don’t even do our cooking on the seventh day; we try to keep that holy. God has said we shall work six days, and rest the seventh. I rest the seventh, according to the commandment. I know that is the right day to keep, and I try to keep it. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.20
The Court. You want to make any statement as to whether you did this work as charged against you? AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.21
Mr. Allison. Yes, sir, I do; I said I worked on the first day of the week; I do that. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.22
The Court. I mean in this case, whether you did the work that the State has charged you with, and as sworn to by the witnesses? AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.23
Mr. Allison. Yes, I don’t deny that; I don’t deny working on the first day of the week, but I deny working on the Sabbath, that is, the Lord’s day. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.24
The Court. You don’t deny doing the work that the witnesses swore to? AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.25
Mr. Allison. No, sir. AMS May 30, 1895, page 170.26
The Court. You mean to swear that you did do it? AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.1
Mr. Allison. Yes, sir; I did the work. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.2
The Court. That these witnesses said you did? AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.3
Mr. Allison. Yes, sir; but I claim that I have a right, under the Constitution and under the laws of God, that I have a right to work or not work and keep the day that he wants me to keep; that is the way I do. I claim I could not work on the seventh day, and then go right on and keep the first day of the week without displeasing God. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.4
The Court. There is nothing in that. I have as much respect for your religion as anybody in any church in the country, or good men in the country. I would not interfere with you in any way in the enjoyment of your religion; this is simply a law of the State, and we are bound thereby. The State could say that you should keep Wednesday or Thursday, that it would be a crime to work on every other Wednesday or every other Thursday, and you would be bound to obey that law. I have a perfect respect for every man’s religion, and I think every man has a right to his religion, whether he is a Mohammedan, or Jew, or Christian, or a Buddhist, and whether he believes in the seventh day, or the first day, or any other day. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.5
Mr. Allison. Don’t you think I would be worshiping some other god, if I was to obey the law in this matter believing as I do? Why God would not protect me, I would be worshiping another god. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.6
The Court. Probably I would not be competent to argue this question with you, when you come to the Bible. This is an act of the State, and if you life in the State of Georgia, you must obey its laws. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.7
Mr. Allison. Don’t you remember where you read about Daniel? They made a law special for Daniel, and they cast him into the lions’ den, and he broke the law, and God protected him in it. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.8
The Court. I believe I have heard something about that, but the day of miracles is past. I am here simply to enforce the laws, and no matter what a man’s religious opinions are, if the laws of the State are that he shall not work on a certain day, and he continues to work on that day, I am bound to enforce the law; I am simply bound to do that; that is my duty; that is my oath. I state to you that you are guilty, according to your own statement, of the violation of the law, and you cannot live in the State of Georgia and do that. The trouble is this, that is you are allowed to do this—I understand you are a good man, your neighbors say you are, there is nothing in the world against you—but if you are allowed to do this, bad men would claim the same privilege, and desecrate what the great majority of people consider the Sabbath; but outside of any reason for it, that is the law. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.9
As appears from the record, the verdict of guilty was entered without the jury leaving their seats. The court then took a recess until afternoon; and, upon reassembling, the judge proceeded to pass sentence upon Mr. Allison, prefacing it with the advice that if the defendant’s religion prevented him from obeying the Sunday laws of Georgia, he would better move out of the State and go where he would be allowed to live out his religion. He said if Mr. Allison persisted in working on Sunday, and came up before him again, he would put him where it would be a long time before he could get out of the State. Then, repeating what he said about Mr. Allison’s being a good man and a good citizen, and there being nothing in the world against him, he said: “I will let you off easy this time with the costs, $22.05, or in default thereof, twelve full months in the chain-gang.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.10
For some discussion of the principles involved in this case, see article on first page of this paper. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.11
“The Boys’ Brigade” American Sentinel 10, 22, p. 171.
ONE of the founders of the “Boys’ Brigade” movement, describing the origin of the movement in a recent number of the Independent, says:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.1
All healthy boys have a love of soldiering born in them. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.2
This intended defense of the military spirit that is permeating the churches, is the strongest condemnation of it. It is very true that boys are born with a love for war, but it is also true that these boys must be “born again” before they can enter the kingdom of heaven. John 3:3. And to the Church was committed the teaching of this vital truth: but instead of condemning the fruits of the natural heart, among which are “emulation, wrath, strife,” the concomitants of war, and teaching that all these belong to the natural heart, to escape which all must be born again, the Church is fostering the natural heart and stamping it with the approval of the Christian Church. The excuse is made that this natural desire of the carnal heart is taken advantage of to get the ear of the boy to teach him that he must be born again. But to do this is to “do evil that good may come,” a proposition condemned by the Scriptures. Romans 3:8. With the one hand the Church is building what with the other it professes to destroy. “Ye cannot serve two masters.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.3
“Found at Last and Last Found in Tennessee” American Sentinel 10, 22, pp. 171, 172.
SOME divine authority for Sunday observance has been a want of many centuries, and many have been the efforts to supply it. Scripture has been wrested, history has been forged and tomes have been written, but all to no purpose; the fact still remained that Sunday was, as Neander says, “always only a human ordinance;” 1 but now the lack has been supplied(?) and that in the very place where most needed, namely, in Tennessee, as is witnessed by the following from the Memphis Weekly Commercial 2:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.1
MILAN, Tenn., May 18.—Mr. J. A. Warner, of this city, has in his possession a wonderful letter, which is probably one of the oldest specimens in existence. It has been in the Warner family 173 years. It is written on material resembling parchment, and yellow with the age of two centuries. The copy and letter are presented as follows:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.2
COPY OF A LETTER
“Written by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and found eighteen miles from Iconium twenty-five years after our blessed Saviour’s crucifixion and transmitted from the holy city by a converted Jew, and faithfully translated from the original Hebrew copy now in possession of Lady Cubasa. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.3
“This letter was found under a stone, both round and large, at the foot of the cross eighteen miles from Iconium near a village called Mesapotamia [sic.]. Upon this stone was written and engrave: ‘Blessed be he that shall turn me over.’ All that saw it prayed to God earnestly and desired that he would make known unto them the meaning of this writing, that they might not in vain turn it over. In the meantime a little child of about six or seven years of age turned it over to the admiration of all present, and under the stone was written the command of Jesus Christ in a letter published by the angel Gabriel ninety-eight years after the death of our Blessed Saviour and carried by a person belonging to Lady Cubass, and made public in the city of Iconium.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.4
THE LETTER
“Glory to God on high and on earth good will to all men, whosoever worketh on the Sabbath day shall be cursed. I command you to go to church and to keep the Lord’s day holy without doing any manner of work. You shall not idle or mis-spend your time in decking yourselves in superfluous and costly apparel and vain dressing, for I have ordained a day to be kept holy that your sins may be forgiven: you shall not break My commandments, but observe and keep them written with My own hand. You shall not only go to church yourself, but your man servant and your maid servant, to observe My word and learn My commandments. You shall finish your labor every Saturday at six o’clock in the afternoon, from that time the preparation of the Sabbath begins. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.5
“I advise you to fast five days in the year, beginning with Good Friday, and so continue the four first days following, in remembrance of the five bloody wounds received for mankind. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.6
“You shall diligently and peacefully labor in your respective vocation wherein it has pleased Almighty God to place you. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.7
“You shall love one another with brotherly love and cause them that are not baptized to come to church and receive the holy sacrament, and be made members thereof; and in so doing I will give many blessings, and comfort you in great temptation, and surely he that doeth to the contrary shall be cursed and unprofitable. I will also send hardships of heart upon them, but especially upon impenitent sinners and hardened unbelievers. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.8
“He that giveth not to the poor shall be unprofitable. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.9
Remember to keep the Sabbath day, for the seventh day I have kept to Myself, and he that hath a copy of this letter and keepest it without publishing it to others, shall not prosper, and he that publish it to others shall be blessed of Me, and if their sins be in numbers as the stars in the firmament and believe in this they shall be pardoned, and if they believe not in this writing and keep not My commandments I will send My plague upon them and their children and their cattle, and whosoever shall have a copy of this letter and keep it in the house nothing shall do them any damage, neither pestilence, lightning or thunder shall hurt them, and if a woman be with child and in labor and she firmly puts her trust in Me, she shall be delivered of her birth; you shall hear no more of Me, but of the blessed spirit, until the day of judgment.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.10
“JESU HOMINUM SALVTOR”Memphis Weekly Commercial.
This is not the first time that documents of this king have been discovered(?) in remarkable ways: and that they have a common origin is evident from their marked similarity: and yet they are not free from contradictions, which circumstance however is never taken seriously by the slave of tradition. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.11
As related by J. N. Andrews, in is “History of the Sabbath,” pp. 287-390, there visited England in the year 1200 A.D., one Eustace, the abbot of Flaye in Normandy, and the burden of his preaching seems to have been Sunday observance. “At London also, and many other places throughout England,” remarks Hoveden, 3 “he effected by his preaching that from that time forward people did not dare to hold market of things exposed for sale on the Lord’s day” [Sunday]. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.12
The abbot met much opposition, however, even from the clergy, and some were so inconsiderate as to demand of the zealous preacher that he cite some divine authority for the observance upon which he so strenuously insisted. The result was that he for a time abandoned the field and “returned,” says Hoveden, “to Normandy, unto his place whence he came.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.13
But the Sunday-breakers were to enjoy only a short respite. The following year, as the same author relates, 4 the abbot returned with the authority demanded in the shape of the following document:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.14
THE HOLY COMMANDMENT AMS TO THE LORD’S DAY
Which came from heaven to Jerusalem, and was found upon the altar of Saint Simeon, in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified for the sins of the world. The Lord sent down this epistle, which was found upon the altar of Saint Simeon, and after looking upon which, three days and three nights, some men fell upon the earth, imploring mercy of God. And after the third hour, the patriarch arose, and Acharias, the archbishop, and they opened the scroll, and received the holy epistle from God. And when they had taken the same, they found this writing therein:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.15
“I am the Lord, who commanded you to observe the holy day of the Lord, and ye have not kept it, and have not repented of your sins, as I have said in my gospel, ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.’ Whereas, I caused to be preached unto you repentance and amendment of life, you did not believe me, I have sent against you the pagans, who have shed your blood on the earth; and yet you have not believed; and, because you did not keep the Lord’s day holy, for a few days you suffered hunger, but soon I gave you fullness, and after that you did still worse again. Once more, it is my will, that no one, from the ninth hour on Saturday until sunrise on Monday, shall do any work except that which is good. AMS May 30, 1895, page 171.16
“And if any person shall do so, he shall with penance make amends for the same. And if you do not pay obedience to this command, verily, I say unto you, and I swear unto you, by my seat and by my throne, and by the cherubim who watch my holy seat, that I will give you my commands by no other epistle, but I will open the heavens, and for rain I will rain upon you stones, and wood, and hot water, in the night, that no one may take precautions against the same, and that so I may destroy all wicked men. AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.1
“This do I say unto you; for the Lord’s holy day, you shall die the death, and for the other festivals of my saints which you have not kept: I will send unto you beasts that have the heads of lions, the hair of women, the tails of camels, and they shall be so ravenous that they shall devour your flesh, and you shall long to flee away to the tombs of the dead, and to hide yourselves for fear of the beasts; and I will take away the light of the sun from before your eyes, and will send darkness upon you, that not seeing, you may slay one another, and that I may remove from you my face, and may not show mercy upon you. For I will burn the bodies and the hearts of you, and of all of those who do not keep as the holy day of the Lord. AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.2
“Hear ye my voice, that so ye may not perish in the land, for the holy day of the Lord. Depart from evil, and show repentance for your sins. For, if you do not do so, even as Sodom and Gomorrah shall you perish. Now, know ye, that you are saved by the prayers of my most holy mother, Mary, and of my most holy angels, who pray for you daily. I have given unto you wheat and wine in abundance, and for the same ye have not obeyed me. For the widows and orphans cry unto you daily, and unto them you show no mercy. The pagans show mercy, but you show none at all. The trees which bear fruit, I will cause to be dried up for your sins; the rivers and the fountains shall not give water. AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.3
“I gave unto you a law in Mount Sinai, which you have not kept. I gave you a law with mine own hands, which you have not observed. For you I was born into the world, and my festive day ye knew not. Being wicked men, ye have not kept the Lord’s day of my resurrection. By my right hand I swear unto you, that if you do not observe the Lord’s day, and the festivals of my saints, I will send unto you the pagan nations, that they may slay you. And still do you attend to the business of others, and take no consideration of this? For this will I send against you still worse beasts, who shall devour the breasts of your women. I will curse those who on the Lord’s day have wrought evil. AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.4
“Those who act unjustly towards their brethren, will I curse. Those who judge unrighteously the poor and the orphans upon the earth, will I curse. For me you forsake, and you follow the prince of this world. Give heed to my voice, and you shall have the blessing of mercy. But you cease not from your bad works, nor from the works of the devil. Because you are guilty of perjuries and adulteries, therefore the nations shall surround you, and shall, like beasts, devour you.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.5
The promulgation of this document greatly stimulated Sunday observances in England as indeed its modern prototype may possibly do in Tennessee. AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.6
It will be noted that there is some conflict between the two documents as to the proper time to begin the observance of Sunday. The Sunday commandment, which now turns up in Tennessee, commands those to whom it is directed that “You shall finish your labors every Saturday at 5 o’clock in the afternoon, from that time the preparation of the Sabbath begins.” The document brought to England by the ablest names the “ninth hour [three o’clock] on Saturday” as the hour at which all work must cease, and many remarkable things are related as happening to those who disregarded this injunction. Hoveden relates some of these stories as follows:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.7
One Saturday, a certain carpenter of Beverly, who, after the ninth hour of the day was, contrary to the wholesome advice of his wife, making a wooden wedge, fell to the earth, being struck with paralysis. A woman also, a weaver, who, after the ninth hour, on Saturday, in her anxiety to finish a part of the web, persisted in so doing fell to the ground, struck with paralysis, and lost her voice. At Rafferton also, a vill belonging to Master Roger Arundel, a man made for himself a loaf and baked it under the ashes, after the ninth hour on Saturday, and ate thereof, and put part of it by till the morning, but when he broke it on the Lord’s day blood started forth therefrom; and he who saw it bore witness, and his testimony is true. AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.8
At Wakefield, also, one Saturday, while a miller was, after the ninth hour, attending to grinding his corn, there suddenly came forth, instead of flour, such a torrent of blood, that the vessel placed beneath was nearly filled with blood, and the mill wheel stood immovable, in spite of the strong rush of the water; and those who beheld it wondered thereat, saying, “Spare us, O Lord, spare thy people!” AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.9
Also, in Lincolnshire a woman had prepared some dough, and taking it to the oven after the ninth hour on Saturday, she placed it in the oven, which was then at a very great heat; but when she took it out, she found it raw, on which she again put it into the oven, which was very hot; and, both on the next day, and on Monday, when she supposed that she should find the loaves baked, she found raw dough. AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.10
In the same county also, when a certain woman had prepared her dough, intending to carry it to the oven, her husband said to her, “It is Saturday, and it is now past the ninth hour, put it one side till Monday;” on which the woman, obeying her husband, did as he commanded; and so, having covered over the dough with a linen cloth, on coming the next day to look at the dough, to see whether it had not, in rising, through the yeast that was in it, gone over the sides of the vessel, she found there the loaves ready made by the divine will, and well baked, without any fire of the material of this world. This was a change wrought by the right had of Him on high. AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.11
“The historian [Hoveden] laments that these miracles were lost upon the people, and that they feared the king more than they feared God, and so ‘like a dog to his vomit, returned to the holding of markets on the Lord’s day.’” AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.12
It is by such subterfuges as this Tennessee discovery and its legitimate predecessor invented by the Abbot Eustace, that the Sunday institution, now hoary with age, was first foisted upon the Christian Church; and it is by means little less dishonest that it is now maintained as a sacred day. AMS May 30, 1895, page 172.13
“The Lord’s Interpretation of the Second Commandment vs. the Roman Catholic Interpretation” American Sentinel 10, 22, p. 173.
THE Monitor finds great fault with the AMERICAN SENTINEL for having in its lead-piece a picture of the Bartholdi statute of liberty enlightening the world. It declares that this is a violation of the second commandment: and that therefore we are inconsistent in insisting on the observance of the Sabbath while breaking the second commandment. Here is the argument of the Monitor: AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.1
On its title page it [the AMERICAN SENTINEL] has a picture of a graven image made to represent the goddess of liberty. This graven image is set up in New York harbor contrary to the laws which the Almighty gave to Moses, and which are as binding as the law concerning the Sabbath day. “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor the likeness of any form that be in heaven above, or that be in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.2
Surely this commandment is as clear as the commandment concerning the Sabbath. It is an open and explicit prohibition against the making of images, and against honoring them in any way. There are no exceptions. All images are tabu. How then can the American Sentinel continue to violate this commandment by retaining Bartholdi’s statute in its lead piece, especially as it is crying woe and dissolution against Christendom for breaking the ordinance concerning the Sabbath day! AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.3
After the extreme of the Monitor’s emphatic division as to who may have “got as far as hic haec hoc” in “so simple a language as the Latin,” it may not be positively irreverent for us to suggest that its exposition of the second commandment is not correct. “All images” are not “tabu,” and never were. For immediately after the giving of this commandment by the Lord, the Lord himself gave the following directions with regard to the building of the sanctuary:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.4
“Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.... And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I show them, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.... And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two end of the mercy seat... And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim.” “And thou shalt make a vail of blue, and purpose, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubim shall it be made.” Exodus 25:2-22; 26:33. AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.5
After all this had been done, again there is this record:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.6
And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole.... And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole. Numbers 21:8, 9. AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.7
And when the temple took the place of the tabernacle, it also was built according to the plan and pattern given to David by the Spirit of God, and which was written out by the hand of the Lord upon David for the guidance of Solomon in the building of the temple. 1 Chronicles 18:11, 12, 29. And of this it is written:— AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.8
Now these are the things wherein Solomon was instructed for the building of the house of God.... He overlaid also the house, the beams, the posts, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and graved cherubims on the walls.... And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold.... And he made the veil of blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubims thereon. 2 Chronicles 3:5-14. AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.9
This is the evidence enough to show that the sweeping interpretation of the second commandment given by the Monitor is directly contradictory to the plain word of the Lord. And all this time, too, the Lord was “crying woe and desolation against Israelites for breaking the ordinance concerning the Sabbath day.” But the Monitor says to the Lord in that case, as certainly as to us: “There are no exceptions. All images are tabu.” How then could the Lord continue to violate this commandment by retaining images of cherubim in and all about the most holy place of his worship, especially as he was “crying woe and desolation against Jerusalem for breaking the ordinance concerning the Sabbath day”? AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.10
But was the Lord right? or is the Monitor right? Which? Is the Lord’s interpretation of the commandment correct? or is the Monitor’s interpretation correct? AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.11
It is true that the second commandment does forbid the making of all manner of images or likenesses of things to be bowed down to, to be feared, to be reverenced, or to be in any way served. This is true of images made at the direction of the Lord as well as images made altogether in the imagination of men. This is shown by the fact that when Israel showed reverence to that brazen serpent and burned incense to it, it was broken to pieces before them and called, as it was, only “a piece of brass.” 2 Kings 18:4. And when Israel came to attach virtue to the temple and to trust in it, the Lord brought up the Chaldeans who stripped the temple of its gold, left the temple in ruins, carried the people captive, and made the land desolate. Jeremiah 7:4-15. AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.12
Among images or likenesses so used there are indeed “no exceptions.” All images of all sorts so used, or in any such way regarded, are indeed “tabu.” All such use of images and likenesses of any persons or things is idolatry. And such is precisely the use which is made of images and likenesses by Catholics everywhere. AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.13
We make no charge of inconsistency, however, against Catholics in their bowing down to graven images, likenesses, etc., for they both bow down to images and put away the Sabbath day. They disregard both the second and the fourth commandments. There is no room there for any charge of inconsistency. The thing is sheer, straight idolatry and abandonment of the God of heaven and earth. AMS May 30, 1895, page 173.14
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 22, p. 176.
THE first two articles in this paper treat of the case of J. Q. Allison, convicted on the 15th inst. in the Superior Court of Douglas County, Ga., of “violating the Sabbath.” These articles are interesting and will repay a careful perusal. The judge’s testimony as to the irreproachable character of the defendant is worthy of note, as is also the simple but earnest manner in which Mr. Allison gave the reasons for his refusal to obey the Sunday law of Georgia. The cause of the Bible Sabbath lost nothing in this trial. The humble farmer with truth on his side is more than a match for a whole State; and even though he had gone into the chain-gang he would have gone a victor. AMS May 30, 1895, page 176.1
THREE Seventh-day Adventists in Bienne, Switzerland, have just been imprisoned for refusing to send their children to school on the Sabbath. When Elder Holser was imprisoned for keeping the Seventh-day Adventist Basel publishing house open on Sunday, it was said that the law did not interfere with his right to keep the Sabbath if he wanted to, but only forbade him to operate a factory on Sunday; but how about the law requiring observers of the seventh day to send their children to school on the Sabbath? Does that law “leave Seventh-day Adventists perfectly free to keep Saturday if they choose to do so”? AMS May 30, 1895, page 176.2
“KOREA,” says the Independent, “is not yet a Christian country, even if the Ministers of Justice and the Interior are Christians: and it is surprising to learn from The Korean Repository, published at Seoul, that since the appointment of the new ministry, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the government offices are closed from Saturday afternoon till Monday morning.” But we fail to see anything strange about this fact. Sunday was originally a heathen festival, and why should it not be still honored by heathen nations? It is a prediction of Holy Writ that all the world shall worship the beast, the papacy, and this will be done by exalting the Sunday, adopted by the papacy from paganism, and made the badge of papal authority. AMS May 30, 1895, page 176.3
AN exchange announces that a bill has been introduced in the Illinois Senate aimed at Schweinfurth, the so-called prophet, of Rockford, Illinois. It provides that whoever assumes or pretends to be a deity or to possess the attributes of a deity, or pretends to be a son of God, or Jesus Christ, or claims to be the incarnation of the Holy Ghost, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary for from one to two years. AMS May 30, 1895, page 176.4
This measure exhibits a lamentable ignorance of the principles of religious liberty, and the sentiment behind the bill is more dangerous than the pretender, Schweinfurth. Let Illinois keep a level head and proceed against her bogus Christ in a statesman-like manner. It is none of the State’s business whether Schweinfurth claims to be the incarnation of Christ, the Holy Ghost, Confucius, Mohammed, or Beelzebub. It is only when his claims lead him to violate the rights of his fellow-creatures that the law can properly interfere, and then only with his acts and not his claims. Illinois already has ample law to cover the case. If the element behind the proposed law had lived in the time of our Saviour, it would doubtless have joined in the cry, “Crucify him.” AMS May 30, 1895, page 176.5
THE National Reformers would have us suppose that the political doctrine that governments derive “their just power from the consent of the governed,” had its origin in the infidelity of the eighteenth century. But more than two hundred and fifty years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and more than two hundred years before the utter rottenness of the Papal Church in France had filled that country with the infidelity which we are told gave rise to the doctrine that the people are the source of civil authority, Luther, Linck, Melancthon, Bugenhagen, and Amsdorff, “the fathers of the Reformation,” announced the same doctrine. In a letter to the Elector Frederick, they said: “No prince can undertake a war without the consent of the people, from whose hands he has received his authority.” This was good Protestantism and good Christianity then, and it is just as good Protestantism and just as good Christianity now. AMS May 30, 1895, page 176.6