The American Sentinel 10
July 4, 1895
“The Immorality of Sunday Laws vs. the ‘Immorality’ of Sunday Work” American Sentinel 10, 26, p. 210.
THE charge against the Seventh-day Adventists on trial this week at Dayton, Tenn., for Sunday work, is that they are guilty of nuisance, because Sunday work is “immoral and of pernicious effect.” But is Sunday work immoral? AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.1
The word immoral is defined by the best dictionaries, as follow:— AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.2
Not moral; inconsistent with rectitude, purity, or good morals; contrary to conscience or the divine law; wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious; licentious, as, an immoral man; an immoral deed.—Webster’s International Dictionary. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.3
Not moral; wanting in principle of or morality; unprincipled; dishonest; depraved.—Encyclopedic Dictionary. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.4
Not moral; not conforming to or consistent with moral law; unprincipled; dissolute; vicious; licentious.—Century Dictionary. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.5
It is evident from these definitions that the moral or immoral character of an act rests upon a more substantial basis than the mere whim or even the delicate judgment of men; it is inherent in the act itself. An immoral act must be violative either of one’s duty to God or to his fellow-men. Nothing can be made either moral or immoral by human law. For instance, marriage, which is a proper, natural and perfectly moral relation, would not become immoral even if prohibited by civil statute; nor would prostitution become moral even if legalized in every country in the world. The divine law alone, whether revealed in nature or by inspiration of God, gives moral character to human actions. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.6
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men,” and that for this purpose and within this sphere “the powers that be are ordained of God,” and ought to be obeyed. Outside this sphere all pretended civil authority is usurpation and is itself immoral. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.7
Sunday Work Not An Offense Against God.
That Sunday work is not an offense against God is evident from the fact that it is forbidden by no divine law revealed either in nature or by inspiration. The divine law of the Sabbath declares: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.” To violate this law is to be guilty of immorality: but the Tennessee Adventists do not violate this law. It is admitted on all hands that they obey this divine Sabbath law. They must therefore be acquitted of immorality from the standpoint of duty toward God. The Divine Being does not require Sunday rest. But even if this were not true; if Sunday were the divinely-appointed Sabbath, and everybody admitted the fact, secular government would have no right to enforce its observance. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.8
Sunday Work Does Not Interfere With The Natural Rights Of Others
It is argued by some, however, that the prohibition of Sunday labor in Tennessee does not rest upon the religious ideas, but upon a purely civil basis; and that the immorality of Sunday work lies not in the idea that it offends God, but in the fact that it is a violation of civil law. But such forget, or never knew, that “no man has a natural right to commit aggressions on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him;” and that “every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him.” AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.9
It is not pretended that private Sunday work by one man or by one family interferes with any natural right of another man or family, or that it prevents others from resting upon that day. No such charge is made against the Tennessee Adventists. Indeed, the universal testimony even of their enemies is that they have not disturbed others by their Sunday work: and the courts of the State have held that “it is not necessary to show that anybody was disturbed.” In Georgia it was expressly stated by Judge Janes, in the Allison case: “You are not on trial for disturbing anybody.” It follows as certainly as effect follows cause, that Sunday work is not immoral from the standpoint of natural human rights: and again and finally, the Adventists must be acquitted of the charge of doing that which is “immoral and of pernicious effect.” AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.10
Sunday Workers Not Immoral.
If Sunday work were “immoral and of pernicious effect,” as is charged by the courts of Tennessee, its evil effects ought certainly to be most clearly seen upon those who engage in it habitually; but instead of being noted for immorality, the Seventh-day Adventists are everywhere acknowledged to be most exemplary people, honest and of good report. Even their enemies being the witnesses there is no fault to be found with them except concerning their Sunday work: in all else they are admittedly the best of citizens. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.11
The Immorality of Sunday Statutes.
But what shall we say of the morality of Sunday laws, so-called? They, as we have seen, contravene the divine law of the Sabbath. They command rest when the law of God enjoins activity; and they, indirectly at least, enjoin work when the law of God commands rest. The inevitable effect of such “laws” must be to destroy respect for the law of God, and to exalt the creature to the place which belongs of right to the Creator. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.12
When the States forbids honest labor on Sunday it forces men into idleness. When God enjoins rest from labor, it is that the time may be employed in spiritual worship. God requires man to cease from his labor on the Sabbath, but he gives to man a spiritual nature, by means of which the cessation from labor is profitably employed. On the other hand the State compels idleness, but does not and cannot give to the idler that spiritual nature which enables him to properly employ the enforced idleness; and therefore, as Satan finds some mischief for idle hands to do, the State, in enforcing idleness on Sunday instead of promoting morality, is in reality fostering immorality. It is generally admitted that more crimes are committed on Sunday than on any other day of the week. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.13
Again, Sunday statutes are immoral, because they demand for the State that which belongs to God. A weekly day of rest is the badge of God’s authority, a sign of loyalty to him as the Creator and of faith in his power to save. By its Sunday laws, so-called, the State robs God of the honor due him, destroys reverence for his law, and stifles the conscientious convictions of many who might otherwise be won to the service of the true God and to the keeping of his divinely-ordained Sabbath. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.14
Again, when the State exempts certain occupations, such as barbering, railroading, steamboating, and certain trafficking such as selling drugs, meats, and groceries during certain hours,—by these exemptions the State undertakes to amend the law of God and to decide for the individual what necessary or charitable labor is permitted on the Sabbath and what is not. In other words, the State presumes to act as conscience for the individual and to decide questions which belong to the domain of individual conscience. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.15
From the reasons thus briefly given it must be clearly seen that Sunday legislation and not Sunday work “is immoral and of pernicious effect.” AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.16
“The ‘Canadian Baptist’ and Sunday Laws” American Sentinel 10, 27, pp. 210, 211.
A CORRESPONDENT has sent us editorial clippings from the Canadian Baptist, Toronto, relative to the question of compulsory Sunday observance. He underlines some of the inconsistencies in the editorials, and then writes at the bottom of the matter the words, “probe tenderly.” The advice is good; and, at no time is it more needed than when examining a Baptist’s attempt to justify enforced Sunday observance. After all that Baptists have suffered for their refusal to obey State-enforced church dogmas, and while proclaiming to the world that one reason for their existence is to teach the world the great principle of “soul-liberty” and separation of Church and State, to find them now defending the prosecution of seventh-day observers for refusing to bow to the laws enforcing the traditional church dogma of Sunday sacredness, it requires the exercise of more than human charity to prevent one from probing deep and energetically. But remembering our own mistakes, and how patient the Lord has been with us, and how slow we have been, and still are, to see and faithfully obey the unfolding light of truth, we are admonished to “probe tenderly.” AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.1
The Canadian Baptist is led to notice the question of Sunday laws, by learning of the conviction of Seventh-day Adventists, J. Q. Allison and R. T. Nash, of Georgia and Mississippi, for doing farm labor on Sunday, and of the resolution passed by the American Baptist Publication Society, at its recent annual meeting at Saratoga, condemning these persecutions. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.2
After criticising the severity of the Georgia Sunday laws, the Canadian Baptist says:— AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.3
But, on the other hand, what are the State authorities, entrusted with the enforcement of the laws, to do with men who openly and, possibly, ostentatiously, persist in working on Sunday in the open fields, when their fellow-citizens are not permitted to do so? Is it clear that such persons have any claim on our sympathies when the laws of the land are put in force against them? It may press hardly, and no doubt does so, on many, to lose the second day from the week. But, is it not the duty of a good citizen to obey the laws of his country? He may, of course, meanwhile do all in his power to obtain a modification or repeal of the law which he believes to be unjust. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.4
To show that this is the language of the persecutor, we will put it, slightly altered, into the mouth of Cotton Mather, and direct it against Baptists. AMS July 4, 1895, page 210.5
It is true that the laws requiring Baptists to have their children baptized, are severe, but what are the civil authorities, entrusted with the enforcement of the laws, to do with men who openly persist in refusing to have their children baptized, when their fellow-citizens are not permitted to disobey? Is it clear that such persons have any claim on our sympathies when the laws of the colony are put in force against them? Is it not the duty of good citizens to obey the laws of their country? They may, of course, secure the modification of the law (however they should not be allowed to succeed in this), but in the meantime it is their duty to obey the law and have their children sprinkled. AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.1
At this point an attempt will be made to show that the cases are not parallel, because the statute enforcing the traditional church dogma of infant baptism is a religious act in conflict with conscience, while the acts enforcing the observance of the traditional church dogma of Sunday sacredness are not religious statutes. But this no man can do. AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.2
The Canadian Baptist will not deny any of the following statements:— AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.3
1. Sunday statutes originated in a union of Church and State. AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.4
2. They were originated for the purpose of enforcing the religious observance of the day. AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.5
3. No attempt was made to defend them on civil grounds until the great principle of separation of Church and State was applied to governments. AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.6
4. And even now the greater portion of those who advocate Sunday statutes do it on the religious basis. AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.7
5. The very wording of the statutes even to-day betray their origin, nature and object. AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.8
These facts are so patent that we believe that the Canadian Baptist will not have the hardihood to deny any of them; and yet, while admitting all this, it attempts to prove that though Sunday laws were born and reared in a union of Church and State, and still wear their ecclesiastical dress, and are vitalized and utilized by ecclesiastics, that nevertheless they are purely civil enactments. AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.9
The Baptist historian, Robert Baird, has this to say on the civil excuse for ecclesiastical statutes:— AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.10
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 July 4, 1895, page 211.11
The Canadian Baptist urges seventh-day observers to obey the Sunday act, even though they must lose one sixth of their time thereby. If it were merely a matter of loss of time, this advice would be good from a financial standpoint, since the fines and imprisonments are far more expensive than the loss of one day each week. But their attitude toward the act does not turn on the financial problem. Once for all we want to impress the Canadian Baptist with the thought that Seventh-day Adventists cannot conscientiously obey Sunday “laws.” They regard the Sunday-sabbath as the sign of papal apostasy from the Word of God, and Sunday “laws” as attempts to compel them to bow to this mark of the papal beast. AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.12
The Canadian Baptist may deny that they are conscientious in the matter, and that the enforcement of the “laws” is religious persecution. Russia denies that it is persecuting Jews and Stundists, and argues that its “laws” are for the good of society; but that does not change the facts. The Massachusetts authorities denied that they persecuted Baptists and denied their claim of conscience, and contended that the laws were wholesome and necessary for the common weal; but this did not change the fact that Baptists were conscientious, that they were persecuted, and that the acts under which they suffered were persecuting measures. Oh! for another John Bunyan, or Roger Williams! AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.13
It is gratifying to know that the Canadian Baptist still regards the Sunday-law problem as a “vexed and difficult question.” This indicates that the struggle between Baptist principles of separation of Church and States and the old error of Church and State union have not yet been definitely settled in its mind in favor of persecution. AMS July 4, 1895, page 211.14
“The Pedigree” American Sentinel 10, 27, p. 216.
AND Satan begat paganism. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.1
And Satan and paganism begat sun-worship. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.2
And Satan and sun-worship begat the “venerable day of the sun.” AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.3
And Satan and the “venerable day of the sun” begat the “Christian Sunday.” AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.4
And Satan and the “Christian Sunday” and the paganizing bishops begat Sunday laws. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.5
And Satan and the “Christian Sunday” and the paganizing bishops begat Sunday laws. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.6
And Satan, the Sunday laws and the bishops begat the union of Church and State, papal Rome. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.7
And Satan and papal union of Church and State begat the English union of Church and State. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.8
And Satan and the English union of Church and State begat the Sunday laws of Charles Second. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.9
And Satan, the English union of Church and State, and the Sunday law of Charles Second begat the colonial union of Church and State and the colonial Sunday laws. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.10
And Satan, the colonial union of Church and State and colonial Sunday laws begat State union of Church and State and State Sunday laws. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.11
And Satan, State Sunday laws and religious bigots begat the persecution of Seventh-day Adventists in Tennessee, Maryland, Georgia and other States. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.12
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 27, p. 216.
WE understand that the superintendent of the House of Refuge in St. Louis has forbidden Catholic priests to perform their rites in that institution, although he admits the ministers of Protestant denominations. The superintendent attempts to justify his action on the ground that the Catholic mass is “idolatry? But on what authority does this public official pronounce this rite idolatry? Has the State of Missouri legally defined idolatry? If not, what business has this city official to permit the performance of certain religious rites as orthodox and prohibit others as idolatrous? Roman Catholic officials in Spain and South America have as much right to pronounce the worship of Protestants idolatry and prohibit it, as has a Protestant official in the United States to pronounce the Roman Catholic mass “idolatry,” and exclude its priests from public institutions. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.1
It is such inconsistencies as these that hurt the cause of religious liberty and show that much of the agitation against papal domination is based on passion and prejudice, and not on principle. Our religious liberties are as much in danger from these “Protestants” as from the most aggressive Roman Catholics. AMS July 4, 1895, page 216.2