The American Sentinel 10
June 6, 1895
“‘Why, What Evil Hath He Done?’” American Sentinel 10, 23, pp. 177, 178.
“WE have a law, and by that law he ought to die,” has always been regarded by bigots, whose creeds were crystallized into civil law, as an all-sufficient reason for demanding the death of the dissenter. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.1
The question, “Why, what evil hath he done?” is answered with the cold, cruel statement from the law-favored priests, “We have a law, and by that law he ought to die.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.2
The answer of Justice, “I find no fault in him,” only enrages the accusers to answer the more vehemently, “We have a law, and by that law he ought to die.” “If thou let this man go, thou art not Cesar’s friend.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.3
Men of all creeds now look back upon the scene, which is the subject of our illustration, and condemn the demand of the Jewish leaders for the life of a faultless man. They condemn the time-serving Pilate for yielding to their haughty threats. Yet while this is true there are many of these who, while cursing those who crucified Christ under the guise of loyalty to law, are to-day repeating in principle the same sin against God and man. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.4
On May 15, J. Q. Allison, a Seventh-day Adventist, of Georgia, was sentenced by the Circuit Court of Douglas County, Ga., to pay costs amounting to $22,05, or in default of payment, to serve twelve months in the chain-gang. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.5
What was is crime? Let the report of the court stenographer answer: “State vs. J. Q. Allison. Misdemeanor—Sabbath-breaking.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.6
The specific act here designated as “Sabbath-breaking” is thus described by one of the State’s witnesses:— AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.7
Question. About how much did he appear to plow that [Sunday] morning? AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.8
Answer. I suppose nothing hardly but a small garden spot, not more than that. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.9
Q. That was about a quarter from the big road? AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.10
A. It was a little over a quarter from the nearest big road from there. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.11
Q. Was it in sight? AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.12
A. No, sir; a man could not see him from where I was at, unless he went to him. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.13
It was for this Sunday-Sabbath-breaking, for this invasion(?) of the natural rights of mankind that Mr. Allison was sentenced, in default of the payment of costs, to twelve months in the chain-gang. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.14
And now, to ascertain officially what Mr. Allison was not sentenced to twelve months in the chain-gang for, we quote again from the official report of the trial; this time from Mr. Allison’s cross-examination of one of the State’s witnesses:— AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.15
Mr. Allison. Have you [Mr. Strickland] worked near my house on the seventh day? ... Haven’t you worked close to my house on the seventh day? AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.16
Ans. Yes, sir. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.17
Q. Have I ever found any fault with you about that? AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.18
A. If you have, I have not heard of it; you have never bothered me. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.19
Q. I have never complained of your disturbing me? AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.20
A. No, sir; you never have at all; I say that. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.21
Q. You know of my ever disturbing your or anyone else? AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.22
A. No, sir. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.23
The Court. You are not on trial for disturbing anybody else. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.24
Here we have it announced from the bench that Mr. Allison was not sentenced to the chain-gang for injuring his neighbors; no, not even for disturbing them. AMS June 6, 1895, page 177.25
Since he had not injured any one, either in reputation, person, or property, what had he done so heinous as to take him from his family and business and consign him as a felon to twelve months’ chain-gang labor with the vilest of malefactors? “Why, what evil hath he done?” AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.1
In reply to this grave question, let the words of the presiding judge be submitted as they appear in the official record of the trial:— AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.2
The Court.... The trouble is this, that if 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 June 6, 1895, page 178.3
In this single sentence we have combined the admission of innocence, the secret reason for condemnation, and the retreat behind the law, which characterized the trial and condemnation of the Son of God. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.4
The secret reason given by the rulers for desiring the death of Christ, was: “If we let this man thus alone, all men will believe on him; and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.” John 11:48. Thus it is seen that the secret reason for his death was that they could not sustain their creed against the teaching and example of his life. So in this case it is admitted in an unguarded moment that Mr. Allison’s irreproachable life will teach other men the truth that the State-enforced Sabbath is not the Sabbath of the Bible, contrary to the belief of “the great majority of the people.” But immediately perceiving that this “reason” betrayed the ecclesiastical nature of the law and its administration, the court hastens to take shelter behind the law, thus: “Outside of any reason for it, that is the law.” “We have a law, and by that law he ought to die.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.5
Let those who condemn the rulers of Israel for demanding the life of an innocent man, because “we have a law,” explain why they can to-day condemn an innocent man to the chain-gang because they are the “great majority” and “have a law” which makes it possible. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.6
A strange feature of all these cases is that the accusers, and in some instances, State officials, look upon the conscience of a Seventh-day Adventist as a kind of weather vane to be shifted to accord with every human ordinance. Do they think that faithfulness to conscience has perished from the earth, that God has abdicated the throne in favor of human law? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.7
It is passing strange that they do not shrink from the awful responsibility of attempting to crush a dissenting minority. Do they not dread to add to that torrent of fears, that ocean of anguish, represented in the Apocalyptic vision as pouring into the ear of Omnipotence, with the eloquent voice of woe, that imploring question, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” Revelation 6:10. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.8
Should Seventh-day Adventists weary of courts, fines, confiscation of goods, imprisonments and chain-gangs,—should they yield to the demand that they treat the Sunday-Sabbath, which they for sufficient reasons regard as the mark or badge of papal apostasy, with the same outward regard which they pay to the Sabbath of the Lord, the sign of the true God; will the representatives of these persecuting States appear in judgment with the statement that since they declared Sunday to be that Sabbath of the Lord and compelled the Seventh-day Adventists to observe it, therefore they demand in the name of the commonwealth that the condemned be pronounced guiltless? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.9
At that great and final judgment there will be no foreign minister to unfurl his country’s flag over the violator of heaven’s law, and demand and enforce protection in the name of his government. States may secure for their citizens safe conducts through a country with which they have diplomatic relations, but not through the country of the “King of kings.” Yet, in the face of all this, man, mortal man, whose life is as a vapor that appeareth for a little time and then vanisheth away; this puny man that must himself stand at the bar of God and answer for his own acts, this same man will presume to interpret the Word of God and force his fellow-mortals to accept of his interpretation, or suffer in prisons and chain-gangs. Could anything be more presumptuous? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.10
Ye rulers of States and of nations, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.11
Who trace with a fallible pen AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.12
“Infallible” creed born statutes AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.13
To fetter the conscience of men; AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.14
Whose laws conflict with Jehovah’s. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.15
And brand on the brow or the hand AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.16
A counterfeit seal of that statute AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.17
Proclaimed from the mountain top grand; AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.18
If we sever our sign of allegiance AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.19
To the King of kings on high, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.20
If we’ll wear thy sign of rebellion, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.21
And our Maker and Saviour deny; AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.22
If we yield to thy chain-gangs and prisons, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.23
If we bow to thy cruel decree, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.24
If we take our allegiance from heaven AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.25
And join it forever to thee: AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.26
Wilt thou promise to meet us in judgment, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.27
When the Court is in session on high, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.28
And enforce the decision thou’st rendered, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.29
And the judgments of heaven defy? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.30
Wilt thou hoist o’er the shelterless sinner AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.31
Thy glorious banner of State AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.32
And demand the verdict “not guilty,“ AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.33
In the name of thy commonwealth great? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.34
Wilt thou rally thy minions to battle, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.35
And march on the City of Light, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.36
Whence angels excelling in power AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.37
Were hurled to the regions of night? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.38
Wilt thou compass the City Eternal, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.39
Its towers and battlements raze. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.40
And train thy batteries brazen AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.41
On the throne of the Ancient of Days? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.42
Canst thou brook His glory consuming, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.43
Or challenge the bolts of His wrath, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.44
And drag Him, a trophy adorning AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.45
Thy chariot’s conquering path? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.46
Canst thou fetter the feet of Jehovah AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.47
And chain him with breakers of stone? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.48
Will Omnipotence bow to your statute,— AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.49
Surrender His right to the throne? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.50
Dost thou shrink from a contest so awful, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.51
And tremble at thought of His might; AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.52
Wouldst thou bide ‘neath the rock and the AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.53
mountain AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.54
Away from his presence so bright? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.55
Then ask not of subjects who serve Him AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.56
With love that scorns at the grave, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.57
To violate laws of His kingdom, AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.58
And trust in your power to save. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.59
“Paternalism” American Sentinel 10, 23, p. 178.
A PROPOSED ordinance has been presented in the Chicago Council forbidding female persons “to ride or attempt to ride any bicycle or tricycle or to publicly promenade in the streets, avenues, or public highways of said city while dressed or arrayed in costumes commonly known as bloomers, knickerbockers, baseball attire, or trousers.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.1
The reasons given in the preamble for the passage of the ordinance, are:— AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.2
WHEREAS, this craze [for wearing bloomers] has assumed such proportions that it menaces the public morals of this good city; and AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.3
WHEREAS it is unhealthy, un-American, and unlady-like to appear in such costumes. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.4
We are not so much concerned about this so-called bloomer “craze” as we are with the craze among would-be statesmen to make of the State a kind of foster mother, whose business it is to feed, clothe and catechize its citizens. There was a time in the history of England when the government prescribed certain apparel for its citizens on the ground of protecting their health, but we supposed we had outlived such paternalism. But it seems that in this matter we were mistaken, for one branch of the Minnesota Legislature actually passed a bill compelling men to act patriotically on Memorial Day. But a law forbidding women to wear bloomers on sanitary grounds, and a law enforcing patriotism are less unreasonable than is a law compelling all citizens to act piously on Sunday. The first two are unreasonable and un-American, the last is not only unreasonable and un-American, but positively unchristian. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.5
“What Is Rome’s System?” American Sentinel 10, 23, pp. 178, 179.
THE Monitor took upon itself the task of defining in what the ritual of the sect to which the AMERICAN SENTINEL belongs, was “summed up.” We replied, showing that we have no ritual at all, and also showing the distinction between Christianity and ritualism, which is simply the difference between Christianity and Catholicism. In this we said that “the whole Roman Catholic system is only one of forms, of ceremony, of ritual. In that system all such things are used as means—as ‘means of grace’—with the hope of thereby obtaining Christ. Rome’s is a system of salvation—justification—by works.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.1
Upon this the Monitor says:— AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.2
To which we reply that the SENTINEL knows nothing—absolutely nothing about Rome’s system. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.3
How does the Monitor know this? How is it that the Monitor knew so much about the “ritual” of the SENTINEL as to be able to sum it up in a single sentence? How is it that the Monitor knows anything at all about the SENTINEL or its “ritual”? Perhaps the Monitor will say that it has read and studied the subject. Very good. But is it a fact already decided by the Monitor that the editors of the SENTINEL cannot—absolutely cannot read or study at all? If the Monitor admits that the editors of the SENTINEL can read and study, then in that it certainly admits that our means of knowing about Rome’s system is precisely as good as is that of the editor of the Monitor to know about the “ritual” or anything else pertaining to the SENTINEL. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.4
This is remarked, however, merely in passing. The material point of the Monitor’s reply is as to whether in the Catholic system, forms and ceremonies—ritual—are “means of grace.” This the Monitor vigorously denies in these words:— AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.5
We do not look upon forms or ceremonies or ritual as means of grace. There is only one source of grace and that is Jesus Christ. There is only one giver of grace and that is Jesus Christ.... Now, as Christ is the dispenser of grace, can’t he dispense it as he wills and how he wills? If he will have it flow through certain channels, who is Alonzo T. Jones that he will say nay to Omnipotence? If Christ’s virtue went out through the hem of his garment, what is to prevent it from going out through the waters of baptism? And if Catholics believe that the employment of baptism is the way appointed by the Lord for the conferring of regeneration—the way by which—not the water, not the form, but—Christ himself confers regeneration, what right has the AMERICAN SENTINEL to accuse us of barren ritualism? AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.6
This would-be denial is a full confession of all that the SENTINEL charged. We never said nor intended to say that in the Catholic system any forms or ceremonies were looked upon as sources of grace, nor as givers of grace. What we said is, that these things are looked upon and “used as means—‘means of grace’—with the hope of thereby obtaining Christ.” That is what we said; and what we meant in that expression is precisely what the Monitor says that Catholics believe, namely: that these forms are channels through which they hope to obtain the grace of Christ. We used the word “means” in no other sense than “channel.” And the clause which said that these forms are “used as means—‘means of grace’—with the hope of thereby obtaining Christ,” would express our thought exactly if it said that these forms are used as channels through which the grace of Christ is expected to be obtained. AMS June 6, 1895, page 178.7
In that article we said in so many words that “the form of baptism, the form of the eucharist, etc., are employed in the Catholic system as ‘means of grace.’” In the attempt to deny this the Monitor says that the grace of Christ “flows through certain channels,” and that “Catholics believe that the employment of baptism is the way appointed by the Lord for the conferring of regeneration—the way by which Christ himself confers regeneration.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 179.1
Now, if there be anybody who, after reading our statement and the Monitor’s denial, cannot see that the Monitor says just what we said—who cannot see that the SENTINEL’S word, “means,” and the Monitor’s words, “is the way,” “the way by which,” and “channels,” say the same thing,—then let such an one read these definitions:— AMS June 6, 1895, page 179.2
“MEANS: That through which, or by the help of which, and end is attained; something tending to an object desired; intermediate agency or measure.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 179.3
“CHANNEL: That through which anything passes; means of passing, conveying, or transmitting.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 179.4
Thus it is as clear as anything needs to be that the Monitor’s would-be denial is nothing else than a confession of all that we charged upon the Catholic system as to ritualism. AMS June 6, 1895, page 179.5
In closing we cannot do better than to write again what we first said—February 14, 1895—on this subject, and write it now in the Monitor’s own words on the subject. As so written it runs thus: He who has Christ has the very life and substance of all the forms of service and of worship which he has appointed. Then these cease to be mere ceremonies or rites, and become the expression of the living presence and power of Christ himself in the life of the believer. This is the end of ritualism, of ceremonialism; the end of a form of godliness without the power; the end of any employment of the form of baptism, or the form of the eucharist, etc., as “means of grace,” as “channels through which grace flows,” as “the way in which Christ confers regeneration” or any other grace, as these are employed in the Catholic system. AMS June 6, 1895, page 179.6
“The law came by Moses, but the reality and the grace came by Jesus Christ.” John 1:17 (Syriac). Now, the whole Roman Catholic system is only one of forms, of ceremony, of ritual. In that system all such things as baptism, the eucharist, etc., are used as means with the hope of thereby obtaining Christ; that is, as “means of grace,” “channels through which,” “the way by which,” the grace of Christ is conferred and obtained: whereas with us any such things are used altogether as the expression of the grace, the presence and the power of Christ, which we already have, by faith. Rome’s is a system of salvation—justification—by works; while ours is the divine truth of salvation—justification—by faith. AMS June 6, 1895, page 179.7
That is what we said February 14, 1895, to the Monitor on this point, only with the Monitor’s would-be denial inserted. And thereby it is made as plain as A B C that by the Monitor’s own words Rome’s system is exactly what we said it is. AMS June 6, 1895, page 179.8
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 23, p. 184.
IT is not the custom of the SENTINEL to credit its original matter, but since the first-page article closes with an original poem whose authorship may be desired by some of our readers, we will state that it was written by our acting assistance editor, Mr. A. F. Ballenger. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.1
J. F. ROTHROCK, a Seventh-day Adventist of West Salem, Ill., was arrested May 20 and convicted of keeping his store open on Sunday. He was prosecuted under a city ordinance, there being no State-law forbidding open stores on Sunday. So great an interest was manifested in the case that the court adjourned to the opera house where Mr. Rothrock spoke in his own defense. We have not learned what further action was taken in the case, but presume it was appealed. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.2
A SPECIAL telegram to the AMERICAN SENTINEL from Amory, Miss., under date of June 2, says:— AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.3
Nash fined one dollar and costs. Immediately paid by the people. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.4
This means that “the people” are better than the law of the State. Mr. Nash is a Seventh-day Adventist colporter. He follows his business five days in the week, rests on “the Sabbath day according according to the commandment,” and on the first day of the week does around his home such work as needs to be done. He was arrested for hoeing in his garden on Sunday, and was tried upon the Sabbath. We do not know, but presume he was informed by the judge that the law in no wise interfered with his right to keep “his” Sabbath, but that he must keep Sunday also. But how would Sunday-keepers like a law that not only required them to observe a day for which they have no religious regard, but under which they were liable to be dragged into court on the day which they regard as sacred to rest and worship? Like the Baptist martyrs of New England, Mr. Nash refused to pay a single penny for exercising his God-given rights. Hence the payment of the fine and costs by “the people” who were not willing to see an honest man imprisoned for exercising his inalienable right of conscience. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.5
AMONG the very few religious papers which have spoken out plainly in condemnation of religious persecution, the Examiner and National Baptist, of this city, stands forth preeminent. On another page we print an article from its editorial columns which ought to be read by everybody, and especially by those Baptists who either never knew or who have forgotten what their brethren of past generations suffered in defense of soul-liberty. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.6
So far as our acquaintance with Sabbath-keepers qualifies us to speak,—and we have known thousands of them scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Lakes to the Gulf,—observers of the seventh day are, as a rule, considerate not only of the rights but also of the feelings of their Sunday-keeping neighbors. We know that no law is necessary to compel them to respect any right of their fellow-men in the matter of weekly rest and worship. Nor can we think that even the measure of Sunday restriction, which the Examiner would favor, is at all necessary. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.7
The thousands of Sabbath-keepers to which we have referred, and besides this many other thousands, many of them in our large cities, who find no difficulty in observing the seventh day, while all the world around them is upon pleasure and money-making bent, prove that those who wish to do so can rest and worship while others are engaged in secular pursuits. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.8
We have ample laws for the protection of both individuals and assemblies upon all days without special laws for Sunday. But if Sunday laws were restricted to the sphere indicated by the Examiner they would be much less objectionable than they now are. But we do not regard even that as necessary or even proper. Nevertheless, we say, all honor to our Baptist contemporary for its fearless championship of the freedom for which Baptists of past generations suffered fines, imprisonment, whipping, banishment, and death. Evidently, God is yet testifying of the gift of Roger Williams, and by his faith “he being dead yet speaketh.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.9
“Maryland Again Persecuting” American Sentinel 10, 23, p. 184.
ROBERT R. WHALEY, a Seventh-day Adventist, of Church Hill, Maryland, is now serving a thirty days’ sentence in the county jail at Centerville, for working in his garden on Sunday. Mr. Whaley is a carpenter, and for some time previous to his arrest, was engaged in building a house in the country at such a distance from his house in the country at such a distance from his home that he did not return until Friday evening of each week. And since he was not permitted to labor on the house on Sunday he devoted that day to caring for his garden. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.1
This his Methodist neighbors would not allow, but entered complaint against him; and on his return home, Friday, May 24, he was served with a warrant, and his trial before the magistrate was set for the evening of May 25. Mr. Whaley was convicted, and in default of payment of fine and costs, was sentenced to thirty days in the county jail and was locked in a cell, Monday May 27. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.2
Mr. Whaley considered it useless to appeal to the higher court since a case had been appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, and he himself had appealed to the Circuit Court on a former occasion, all to no avail. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.3
It will be remembered that Mr. Whaley spent thirty days in the same jail last fall, for a similar offense. At that time the sheriff was very kind: but as in the biblical account there arose a king in Egypt who knew not Joseph, so now there has arisen in Queen Anne’s County a sheriff who is unacquainted with Mr. Whaley, and consequently Mr. Whaley is at present locked in a cell as a common criminal. However, it is to be hoped that his faithful, consistent life will touch the heart of his new jailer. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.4
Mr. Whaley is forty-three years old and has a wife and seven children. They were formerly Methodists, and it is at the hands of their former church associates that they now suffer. It is difficult to understand how men who take the name of Christ and profess to obey the Golden Rule can thus cruelly take a husband and father from his hand-working wife and prattling children, and from his only means of procuring them bread and shelter, and lock him behind bars. It is gratifying to know that Mr. Whaley’s wife is in perfect sympathy with her persecuted husband and would work her finger nails off in an attempt to care for her little ones rather than have her husband yield the vital principle at stake. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.5
The International Religious Liberty Association, with headquarters at 271 West Main St., Battle Creek, Mich., will undertake to care for Mr. Whaley’s family while he is in jail. This association is supported by its members who pay an annual due of one dollar, and from donations contributed by those interested in the struggle for religious freedom against these modern relics of medieval days. But since the association has a score or more of these cases in Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi and Illinois on its hands, with the prospect of others, it will be necessary for the friends of liberty of conscience to manifest their interest in a material way. We feel like remarking, in the language of the German Lutheran editor, quoted on page 180: “For God’s sake let us not be inactive, but let us make preparations for the battle. The most precious liberty of our country is at stake.” AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.6
In this connection we call attention to our first-page article. The principles therein discussed will apply with equal force to this Maryland case. AMS June 6, 1895, page 184.7