The American Sentinel 10
September 19, 1895
“The Fountain of Lawlessness” American Sentinel 10, 37, pp. 289, 290.
IN his second epistle to the church of Thessalonica, the Apostle Paul, speaking of the coming of the day of God, wrote:— AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.1
Let no man beguile you in any wise; for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.... And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work; only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8. (R.V.) AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.2
These words of inspiration have a most important bearing upon an understanding of the nature of the times at which the world has now arrived. AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.3
It is a time of prevailing lawlessness. Revolution and riot, insurrection and anarchy, lynchings and mob violence in every form, are setting law and order at defiance throughout the world. At the same time we see rapidly developing in this country a party that claims to stand for the principle of obedience to law; the members of which are zealously working to instill this principle into the public mind in favor of certain laws, and who are ready to denounce all such as do not favor those certain laws, stigmatizing them as lawless persons, if not as anarchists and traitors. AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.4
In view of these facts it is of the highest interest and importance to investigate the career of this “lawless one” of which the prophecy speaks, that we may know how far his teaching and example may have contributed to the lawlessness of the present day. AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.5
This “mystery of lawlessness” was already working in Paul’s day, but was to be more clearly revealed as the “man of sin” who “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.” There is a power which exists in our world to-day, the history of which is an accurate fulfillment of these words. It is the papacy. AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.6
Is it any wonder that this power is spoken of as the “mystery of lawlessness” and “the lawless one,” in view of the fact that it has actually dared to set at naught the law of the most high God? and even more than this, has claimed the power and the right to make changes in that law, and has set its own precepts and laws in the place of those spoken by Jehovah! AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.7
That the papacy has done this, is clear from her own testimony. True, she does not claim to have acted in opposition to the will of God; but her claim of divine sanction for her daring work only throws a more lurid light about the facts. Papal teaching upon this point, as published in her catechisms, is as follows:— AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.8
Q. Say the third commandment. AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.9
A. Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.10
Q. What is commanded by the third commandment? AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.11
A. To spend the Sunday in prayer and other religious duties. 1 AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.12
This language is in bold contrast with that of God’s law, as spoken by him upon Mount Sinai; for the third commandment of that law is: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” The second commandment, which forbids the worship of images, is dropped—stricken out—in this papal presentation of the divine law, thus leaving the third commandment to take the place of the second, and the fourth the place of the third. Moreover the Sabbath commandment enjoins, not the observance of Sunday, but of the seventh day. We quote further:— AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.13
Q. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days? AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.14
A. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday. 2 AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.15
Q. Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept? AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.16
A. Had she not such power she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her;—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day,—a change for which there is no Scriptural authority. 3 AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.17
And the Protestants (in name) of to-day are following the example of the papacy in defying the law of God; teaching that the first day, instead of the seventh, is the Sabbath which men are divinely commanded to observe. AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.18
Not only do they teach this, but they have incorporated this doctrine into their civil law, so that the observance of “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” is commanded upon men under civil pains and penalties. AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.19
With but one exception, all the States of the Union have such laws in their statute books; and these laws are the ones, in particular, whose enforcement is now being loudly demanded in the name of respect for law! AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.20
If there is anything in the world that deserves the name of anarchy, it is defiance of the law of Jehovah. Satan was the first one who set up his will in opposition to that of the Creator. The papacy, actuated by the same spirit of self, has done likewise, and during the long centuries of her supremacy, her false doctrine so permeated the world that the nations are drunken with it. Revelation 14:8; 17:4; 18:3. And now, under the influence of this wine of false doctrine, the Protestant nations—and most noticeably our own—are imitating “the lawless one” in her heaven-daring course. AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.21
All that is against the law of God is lawlessness, even though it may have the form and appearance of law. It is in accordance with and by the aid of those principles of natural right and justice which the Creator has implanted in men’s hearts, that all human laws are supposed to be framed; and when statutes are enacted contrary to those principles, they can have no binding obligation. On this point, Blackstone, the great law commentator, says:— AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.22
This law of nature being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, mediately or immediately, from this original. AMS September 19, 1895, page 289.23
A Sunday law is contrary both to that law which God spoke from Mount Sinai and to the law of natural rights; to the former, in that it puts Sunday in the place of God’s Sabbath—the seventh day—and to the latter, in that it invades every man’s natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. It is impossible, therefore, that Sunday laws should operate in the interests of peace and order, and of respect for true, or natural, law, which is unchangeable and eternal, and is synonymous with right. Alexander Hamilton said: “In a society under the form of which the stronger faction can readily united and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secure against the violence of the stronger.”—Federalist II. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.1
Who, then, are the lawless ones to-day, and who are really working in the interests of respect for and obedience to law? Can those who adhere to the law of God,—both that which he spoke with his own voice, and that natural law of right which is stamped more or less clearly upon every mind, and from which all human law must derive its force,—can such be properly viewed as other than law-abiding people, even though that adherence should lead them contrary to some of the statutes of men? AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.2
Is it not perfectly clear that the real promoters of lawlessness and anarchy are those who, wittingly or unwittingly, follow the example of “the lawless one” in setting aside the precept of Him whose throne is in the heavens, and whose kingdom ruleth over all? AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.3
When that law is set aside, confusion and anarchy are the inevitable result. The very heavens, with their shining spheres which declare the glory of God, are governed by divine law. Let that law be withdrawn, and celestial anarchy would show itself in confusion and the wreck of worlds. All nature testifies that “the law of the Lord is perfect.” And we are resolved that our testimony shall agree with hers, by letting the divine law control our lives, as it controls her. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.4
All the confusion, the lawlessness, the strife and anarchy which darken the face of the earth to-day, are the results of disregard of the perfect, divine law. He who teaches that the ten commandments have been abolished, or that any of those precepts have been changed, or in any other way weakens their hold upon men’s consciences, is working to keep open the evil fountain that is sending forth its flood of lawlessness upon the earth. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.5
“Dr. Sunderland on Persecution” American Sentinel 10, 37, pp. 290, 291.
REV. DR. SUNDERLAND, of Washington, D.C., has taken occasion to review the AMERICAN SENTINEL, of July 18, in a three-column article in the Boston Daily Standard, of September 3. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.1
The first thing the doctor notices is the “Roll of Honor,” a list of about 120 papers that have condemed [sic.] the persecution of Seventh-day Adventists. Of the attitude of these papers, he says:— AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.2
It is comparatively easy in this country to denounce the action of the civil authorities in pursuance of existing law as the perpetration of crime upon inoffensive men and women, who yet stand the open, confessed violators of existing civil law, and yet claim that they are inoffensive people, whose conscience will not permit them to obey the law, because the law is man-made, and not God-made, in their opinion. Thus they turn upon the law and its faithful administration by those who are lawfully charged with its execution, and claim to be “oppressed” by this “un-American, unjust, bigoted and intolerant proceeding.” They claim to be more holy than the law itself; that, indeed, the law is in direct contravention of God’s law, and that in deference to God’s law they are perfectly justified in trampling on the State law, which they claim should be at once abolished. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.3
This shows that the doctor’s sympathies are entirely with the persecution and not with its victims. He speaks of turning “upon the law and its faithful administration by those who are lawfully charged with its execution,” etc.; but the same number of the SENTINEL that published the “Roll of Honor,” published an article, “Partial in the Law,” showing that those “faithful” administrators of “law” conveniently closed their eyes to all violation except by Seventh-day Adventists. This fact alone brands the so-called enforcement of the Tennessee Sunday “law” as religious persecution. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.4
But that Dr. Sunderland has no appreciation whatever of the real question involved is evident from this statement:— AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.5
The whole structure of this argument rests upon one small pivot, the calendar of the Sabbath. It turns simply on the question whether the Jewish or the Christian calendar is in vogue. They cling to the Jewish calendar, and ninety-nine one-hundredths of all Christendom accept the Christian calendar. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.6
The whole question turns upon nothing of this kind. The question is a very simple one: Shall the minority have the right to believe and practice as they please in matters of faith, so long as they do not interfere with the equal rights of others? AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.7
It is utterly absurd to contend the private work, such as is carried on by the Adventists, in any way interferes with the right of the majority to keep Sunday, or that it interferes in any way with the due observance of that day by anybody who wishes to keep it. The very most that can be claimed is that it is offensive to the moral sensibilities of those who regard Sunday as a sacred day. But has civil government any right to undertake to “protect” the majority from such a shock to their moral sensibilities? To do so would be to return at once to the maxims and methods of the Dark Ages. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.8
Moreover, the circumstances show that the moral shock is not due to the fact that the Adventists work on Sunday, but that their Sunday work, coupled with their Sabbath rest, is a protest against Sunday sacredness. No effort is made to prosecute others who work on Sunday; railroad trains, iron furnaces, coke ovens, livery stables, are operated on Sunday, and no effort is made to interfere with them. Daily papers are published in Tennessee, and in the cities street-cars run; and yet all these things are against the law equally as much as is the work done by Adventists. As stated in the number of the SENTINEL, which Dr. Sunderland reviews, a member of the grand jury, that found the indictments against the Adventists, and was very prominent in their prosecution, works himself and employs others to work for him on Sunday in the fruit season, simply to shield himself from loss; and again, we say, the question is not as to the calendar, but as to whether Seventh-day Adventists shall enjoy equal rights with other people. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.9
The doctor’s talk about “Jewish calendar” and the “Christian calendar” is all about nonsense. Both Jews and Christians have the same week, and have had from time immemorial. The contention that man’s first day was God’s seventh day, is utterly without foundation. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support it. It is true that man was created on the sixth day, and that his first full day was the seventh day of creation week; but that it was his first day is absurd, for the man was not only created upon the preceding day (the sixth), but the woman was also created upon that day and given to man, so that the sixth day was not only Adam’s first day, but it was his wedding day. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.10
But this whole matter of man’s first day being God’s seventh day, is too silly to discuss seriously. We are not dependent for our knowledge of the Sabbath upon man’s count of the weeks. It was a matter of direct revelation to the children of Israel. When they came out of Egypt and were led into the wilderness, God removed all possibility of doubt as to the identical day to be kept, by withholding manna upon that day every week for forty years. There was no possibility of a mistake there; God makes no mistakes. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.11
Then again, at the time of the crucifixion we have the Sabbath unerringly pointed out by the statement concerning the holy water, that “they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.” AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.12
Within less than a generation from that time the Jews were scattered to every nation under heaven; and yet history records the disagreement arising either among the Jews, or between Jews and Gentiles, as to the correct numbering of the days of the week. This agreement is utterly destructive of the claim that any change of calendar could change the reckoning of the weeks; and it is equally true to the contention that nobody can tell which is the seventh day of the week. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.13
The doctor’s contention that the first day of the week is called the sabbath in the original of Matthew 28:1, etc., is not worthy of serious consideration. No reputable critic has ever taken any such position, nor is there any probability that any such will take that position, for it is utterly untenable. AMS September 19, 1895, page 290.14
Toward the close of this long review the doctrine returns to his defense of intolerance in the matter of enforcing Sunday laws, but he does not use a single argument that was not used by the Puritans three hundred years ago to justify their intolerance toward Baptists and Quakers in Massachusetts. The only question and the one which will not down is: Shall observers of the seventh day enjoy equal rights with others, or will the majority continue to override by despotic power the rights of the minority? Adventists are not asking for toleration merely, they are demanding rights. The majority have the physical power to deny these rights and to punish men for exercising them; but no physical power and no amount of sophistry can destroy God-given rights. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.1
But the doctor denies that God has ever given any man a right to do wrong. That is true so far as man’s obligation to God is concerned. No man has a right from the divine standpoint to do wrong; “for God will bring every work into judgment with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.” But so far as his fellow-men are concerned, God has given every man the right to do just as he pleases in moral things. To take any other position would be to justify the Inquisition. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.2
The doctor’s closing “argument” amounts to no more than calling those who observe the seventh day, “cranks;” but that settles nothing. Those who have chosen to obey God rather than men have always been accounted cranks, and have always been cried down as the perverters of the truth and the disturbers of social order. But “nothing is settled until it is settled right,” and the doctor and all others may rest assured that this question of the rights of conscience cannot be settled in the way which he proposes. It must be settled right. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.3
“Conscience above Statute” American Sentinel 10, 37, p. 291.
SEPTEMBER 8, Dr. Talmage preached from the words recorded in Daniel 6:10: “His windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem.” The doctor fully justified the prophet’s disobedience of civil law, in these words:— AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.1
The scoundrelly princes of Persia, urged on by political jealousy against Daniel, have succeeded in getting a law passed that whosoever prays to God shall be put under the paws and teeth of the lions, who are lashing themselves in rage and hunger up and down the stone cage, or putting their lower jaws on the ground, bellowing till the earth trembles. But the leonine threat did not hinder the devotions of Daniel, the C?ur de Lion of the ages. His enemies might as well have a law that the sun should not draw water, or that the south wind should not sweep across a garden of magnolias, or that God should be abolished. They could not scarce his companions with the red-hot furnaces, and they cannot now scare him with the lions. As soon as Daniel hears of this enactment he leaves is office of secretary of state, with its upholstery of crimson and gold, and comes down the white marble steps and goes to his own house. He opens his window and puts the shutters back and pulls the curtain aside so that he can look toward the sacred city of Jerusalem, and then prays. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.2
I suppose the people in the street gathered under and before his window and said: “Just see that man defying the law! He ought to be arrested.” And the constabulary of the city rush to the police headquarters and report that Daniel is on his knees at the wide open window. “You are my prisoner,” says the officer of the law, dropping a heavy hand on the shoulders of the kneeling Daniel. As the constables open the door of the cavern to thrust in their prisoner they see the glaring eyes of the monsters. But Daniel becomes the first lion tamer, and they lick his hand and fawn at his feet, and that night he sleeps with the shaggy mane of a wild beast for his pillow, while the king that night, sleepless in the palace, has on him the paw and teeth of a lion he cannot tame—the lion of a remorseful conscience. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.3
These are wholesome words, not because they are uttered by Dr. Talmage, but because they are true; and because so many hold to the utterly mischievous doctrine that the civil law must be obeyed whether right or wrong. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.4
Daniel was right and his persecutors were wrong; and so is every statute-intrenched tyrant wrong. “I recollect well,” says Rev. J. E. Scott, in the September Arena, “when the preaching of human freedom was stigmatized as revolutionary and anarchistic, and fraught with peril to the nation. To the defender of slavery the doctrine that all men are born equal was rankest anarchy. From the standpoint of human freedom the defender of slavery was the anarchist.” AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.5
But that day has passed away, and now nobody in the United States defends human slavery, and the nation honors the men it once despised, and covers with flowers the graves of the men the multitudes once mobbed. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.6
“Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her Wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ‘tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,
doubting in his abject spirit, till his Lord is crucified,
And the multitude make virtue of the faith they Had denied.”
AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.7
“God’s Sabbath vs. Man’s Sabbath” American Sentinel 10, 37, p. 291.
ALL we ask in regard to Sunday laws, is that man’s law for Sunday-keeping shall be no more restrictive than God’s law for Sunday-keeping. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.1
We are frequently told by those who believe in keeping Sunday, and in laws to make people keep it, that the law of God does not command the keeping of a definite day of the week, but only of one day in seven. But these same men say it is necessary that a definite day—Sunday—shall be enforced by human law. Evidently, from their standpoint, God was not so wise as they are, or he would have been more definite. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.2
That God was definite in his Sabbath command, is demonstrated beyond question by the fact that he “blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” God had finished his rest when he blessed the Sabbath day. Genesis 2:3. But God does not bless a thing that is past and gone; his blessing is for the present and the future. He blessed the Sabbath and hallowed it for the benefit of mankind, so that every week, from Adam’s day to ours, there has dawned one day upon the world which was blessed and hallowed. And he who says that this day was not and is not a specified, definite day, might as well claim that God blessed and hallowed the entire week. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.3
There is no rest in being compelled to rest, or recreation in being forced to do something you do not want to do. There is no benefit, physical or intellectual, to be derived from compulsory idleness. The healthy, human system,—thanks to the wisdom of the Creator,—does not take naturally to idleness. And when it is forced to be idle against its will, as in very many cases it is by a Sunday law, it will wear itself out more by chafing and fretting under the restraint than by any ordinary labor it might have performed during the day. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.4
That must be a very restful sabbath to the sinner in which he is compelled to try to act like a saint! AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.5
There was recently on exhibition at the Royal Aquarian in London, an old clock, made by a pious Scotchman a century and a half ago, and so constructed that it would keep Sunday; that is, it would stop short at 12 o’clock Saturday night and refuse to tick against until midnight of Sunday. It is just such ideas as this that naturally grow out of a man-made sabbath, as the ancient laws for Sunday-keeping well show. How fortunate it is for our race that the real Sabbath was made by God, and that he, not man, has adapted it to mankind. Otherwise we might expect the universe to come to a dead stop at Saturday midnight—the stars and sun stop shining, the grass and trees stop growing, the earth stop moving, the birds stop singing, in brief, everything stop short for a period of twenty-four hours, save the tolling church bells and the voice of the preacher delivering a sermon on eternal torment or predestination. But we may breathe freely over the actual situation; for it is God who made the Sabbath, and his Sabbath is not against man, but “for” him. Mark 2:27. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.6
“Look on This Picture, Then on This” American Sentinel 10, 37, pp. 291, 292.
FOR orderly private work Seventh-day Adventists are fined, imprisoned, and driven in chain-gangs in Tennessee, because their example is said to be immoral and of pernicious effect. But iron furnaces, livery stables, railroad trains, and in short, almost anything not run by Adventists, except saloons, is permitted to do business on Sunday, while the State orders out and drills its militia on that day, as is witnessed by the following notice published in a Spring City paper, while eight Seventh-day Adventists were “doing time” there for “violating the sabbath“:— AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.1
COMPANY, ATTENTION!
HEADQUARTERS OF COMPANY “G.,” 2ND BATALLION,
N. G. S. T
Spring City, Tenn., August 5, 1895.
Orders No. 25.
All the members of this Company are hereby commanded to report at the Company Armory promptly at 2 o’clock on Sunday evening, August 18, 1895, for the purpose of starting on the march for the encampment at Crossville, Tenn., on the morning of the 19th. Each man will provide himself with one blanket, or heavy quilt; and at least two changes of underclothing, including one white shirt and white standing collars and cuffs. Each man will also see that he has a pair of clean white gloves in the pocket of his blouse. No excuses from this duty will be granted, except for the best of reasons. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.2
All who fail to obey this order will be arrested promptly, and punished as the State Regulations direct. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.3
By order of W. P. MCDONALD, AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.4
Captain Commanding. J. H. HILTON, First Sergeant.
The captain of this company is the editor of the Spring City Herald, a paper which has insisted upon the enforcement of the law; and yet by this order he violates the fundamental law of the State which provides that “no person shall in time of peace be required to perform any service to the public on any day set apart by his religion as a day of rest.” AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.5
To require a Sunday-keeper to drill on Sunday, as was done in Spring City, Tenn., August 18, is certainly a violation of this provision of the constitution of the State of Tennessee. But it is nevertheless a common practice in that State. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.6
Sunday, June 30, just on the eve of the session of the court at which the Rhea County Adventists were convicted for Sunday work, one for lifting a wheelbarrow over a fence, the writer of this note saw State Militia marching in the streets of Dayton, almost with the shadow of the courthouse in which the Adventists were sentenced three days later. AMS September 19, 1895, page 291.7
Such are some of the inconsistencies of the Tennessee Sunday “law” and its enforcement. AMS September 19, 1895, page 292.1
“Unworthy of Baptists” American Sentinel 10, 37, p. 294.
WE have been surprised at the number of Baptist papers that have attempted to justify the persecution of Seventh-day Adventists for private Sunday work. Several of these papers have manifested a spirit very far from Christian; and some have taken positions which are uttrly [sic.] inconsistent with the past history of Baptists. AMS September 19, 1895, page 294.1
The Baptist Reaper, of Martin, Tenn., in its issue of August 29, publishes the following:— AMS September 19, 1895, page 294.2
In regard to the prosecution of Seventh-day Adventists for violating Sunday laws, and consequent charge of religious persecution, a correspondent of the East Tennessee Baptist makes a good point, as follows: AMS September 19, 1895, page 294.3
“Every citizen is to have perfect liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. The Seventh-day Adventists claim that their consciences compel them to worship God on Saturday. No one has sought to prevent their doing so. Hence they are not persecuted.” AMS September 19, 1895, page 294.4
As some one else has well remarked, all this cry of persecution is simply a little scheme for advertising Adventism. The attempt of this modern sect to produce martyrs is a miserable failure, and its plea is a fraud. AMS September 19, 1895, page 294.5
The correspondent of the East Tennessee Baptist is evidently not informed in regard to the views of Seventh-day Adventists. Seventh-day Adventists hold that Sunday is a rival institution to the true Sabbath; and that to observe it would be to violate the fourth commandment, which establishes a distinction between the Sabbath and all other days, and requires that all men shall respect that distinction. For the Adventists to keep Sunday also would be the same as it would have been for the three Hebrews to have appeared to worship the image which the King of Babylon had set up. It is a very short-sighted view to take of the matter to assert that Adventists are left perfectly free to keep the Sabbath, when they are forbidden to work on Sunday. Would Baptists feel that they were left perfectly free to practice immersion, if they were required to submit to sprinkling also? Would they not complain, and justly too, that their religious liberty was interfered with, their rights trampled upon? But Sunday is just as much a counterfeit of the Sabbath as sprinkling is a counterfeit of baptism; and Sunday is just as much opposed to the Sabbath as sprinkling is to true baptism. AMS September 19, 1895, page 294.6
The editor of the Reaper is evidently not well informed on Baptist history. He should read again the history of Massachusetts and of Virginia, and especially the life of Roger Williams, who was banished from Massachusetts for entertaining the opinion “that the magistrate might not punish a breach of the sabbath, nor any other offense that was a breach of the first table. AMS September 19, 1895, page 294.7
We are glad, however, that there are yet some true Baptists. AMS September 19, 1895, page 294.8
“This little scheme for advertising Adventism,” might be entirely frustrated if Sunday-keepers would only permit the Adventists to exercise equal rights with themselves. Our contemporary should remember the ninth commandment. AMS September 19, 1895, page 294.9
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 37, p. 296.
DOWN in Richmond, Va., if report be true, the Sunday law “reformers” have had the courage to take a step towards consistency in the enforcement of Sunday “laws,” and have secured a municipal order stopping the street railway service on that day. It is altogether probable, however, that such consistency would, in most of our large cities, be fatal to an increase of the Sunday congregation, which is the real object sought in the crusade for compulsory Sunday rest. AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.1
THE Sunday translation of the New Testament which is issued by the American Bible Society, has taken a decided step in advance of the English and other versions, from the standpoint of belief in divine honor for Sunday. It makes the translation of the first clause of Revelation 1:10, read: “I was in the spirit on Sunday,” instead of the common rendering, “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.” Thus, by the authority and word of man, Sunday has at last obtained Scriptural recognition. This proof for Sunday will do to add to that furnished by Congress in 1892, when it voted that Sunday was the Sabbath. AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.2
ELDER H. P. HOLSER, Superintendent of the Seventh-day Adventist missions in Europe, writes to the Review and Herald, the official paper of the denomination, that the police of Basel, Switzerland, are very diligent in keeping watch of the Seventh-day Adventist publishing house in that city, to discover if work is being done on Sunday; but that they persistently close their eyes to other work going on in the immediate vicinity. For instance, on one Sunday they professed not to see a gang of workmen on the opposite side of the street from the publishing house, hammering and sawing, building a grand stand for a race to take place the same day. This shows very clearly that in Switzerland, as in the United States, Adventists are not persecuted for Sunday work, but for Sabbath rest. AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.3
THE article, “Zealous in Details,” on page 292, deserves more than passing notice. It is calm, dispassionate, and logical. Its manly, Christian tone is in sharp and striking contrast with the intolerant bigotry of the paragraphs which the writer quotes in the outset of his article. Probably without realizing it, the Advance admits the religious character of the Sunday statute of Tennessee in the words, “They [the Adventists] are taken sharply to task by the church and civil authorities.” It is the same old story over again, the Church using the power of the State to enforce her dogmas. AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.4
The charge that the Dayton (Graysville) Adventists “were planning for notoriety,” is unreasonable. The Graysville Adventists had every reason to desire to be permitted to quietly attend to their own affairs. They selected the village of Graysville for the establishment of a school largely because it was a quiet place, where they supposed they would be unmolested; and now to charge them with courting persecution is the height of folly as well as the depth of wickedness. A little more attention to “details” in the matter of obeying the ninth commandment would be an excellent thing for those who are so ready to speak against the Adventists. AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.5
EITHER religious liberty is a natural right of all men, or it is not the right of any man, for, “all men are created equal.” AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.6
Religious liberty being the natural right of every man, it can have only natural limitations. AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.7
The only natural limitation to natural right is the equal rights of others. “Every man,” says Macaulay, “has a right to all that may conduce to his pleasure, if he does not inflict pain upon anyone else. This is one of the broadest maxims of human nature, and I cannot therefore see how its supporters can be fairly called upon to defend it—the burden of proof lies, not on the advocates of freedom, but on the advocates of restrain.” AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.8
The principle is that every man has a right, as far as his fellow-men are concerned, to do as he wills, provided that will does not lead him to trample upon the equal rights of his fellows. This principle has been seen and recognized by the defenders of religious liberty everywhere. The constitution of Maryland provides that— AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.9
No person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless under color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, ... or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights. AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.10
It will be noticed that in this the line is drawn at the rights of others. Up to that point no man has any right to question the right of his fellow-man to do as he wills. AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.11
This principle, while admitted theoretically in Maryland, as elsewhere, has in almost every State of the American Union, been violated in practice. In practice men are not permitted to do even in obedience to conscience everything which does not trench upon the equal rights of their fellow-men. For instance, in Maryland and other States, men are not permitted to exercise their natural right to labor when they choose, but are forbidden to do secular labor or business upon the first day of the week; and this whether it in any way interferes with the equal rights of others or not. AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.12
It is not sufficient to answer that by such work they cause mental pain to their fellow-men, because others by Sabbath work cause pain to those who observe that day; and rights being equal and to be equally protected, if to be preserved from mental pain were a natural right, then there should also be a law forbidding work upon the seventh day. But nobody would contend for anything of that kind for a moment. Government cannot undertake to protect the feelings of the people. Government can protect only the reputation, the person and the goods of those whoa re under its jurisdiction. It cannot undertake to shield from the annoyance of their own bigotry and intolerance, those who imagine that others should do as they do, and believe as they believe. AMS September 19, 1895, page 296.13