The American Sentinel 10
October 3, 1895
“Some Principles Stated” American Sentinel 10, 39, pp. 305, 306.
GOD is the Creator, and therefore the rightful sovereign of this world. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.1
Whatever he commands is to be performed by his loyal subjects, no matter if all earthly powers should combine to prevent it; and that which he forbids will not be done by them, no matter how many of earth’s mighty ones require it. The divine rule is: “Obey God rather than men.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.2
When the Lord Jesus Christ was about to leave this earth, he gave to his church a commission: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;” and from that day to this, his faithful ministers have been going and preaching. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.3
When this commission was given, it was against human “law” to introduce any new religion into the Roman empire; and all the then known world was subject to Rome, so that in all the world it was against the “law” to preach the gospel. But Christ said “Go;” and they “went everywhere preaching the word.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.4
Almost everywhere the disciples of Christ met opposition from earthly powers in executing this divine commission. They were persecuted in Jerusalem, were imprisoned and whipped, and some of them “were slain with the sword,” but still the survivors continued to preach the gospel according to the divine command. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.5
The opposition which the disciples met in their work did not surprise them, for the Master had told them that such would be the case. He said: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” And gospel messengers found that it was even so. Wherever they went the wrath of Satan was stirred up against them; and it was only too often manifested through civil rulers. But this did not cause them to cease preaching the gospel. When the magistrates commanded the apostles “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus,” “Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.6
The experience of the apostles has been repeated in almost every country and in every generation from the beginning of their ministry until the present time. Everywhere the gospel has been introduced in the face of opposition from the civil authorities; but Christians have never stopped to question their duty in the premises. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.7
The history of modern Christian missions is quite as replete with illustrations of this truth as is the history of the more early preaching of the gospel. With but few exceptions, heathen rulers have opposed the introduction of the gospel among their subjects; but without avail. Faithful men and women, counting “not their lives dear unto them,” have penetrated the jungles of India, the deserts of Africa, and the solitudes of the isles of the ocean, carrying with them the gospel, which they have faithfully proclaimed, whether men would hear or whether they would forbear, and whether rulers gave their consent to its proclamation or not. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.8
So universally has the right of the Christian missionary to obey the gospel commission been seen and admitted, that we find the governments of the principal “Christian nations” of the world insisting that Christian missionaries shall be permitted to deliver their message to as many as will listen to it. Were it not for this, Christian missions, as they are maintained to-day, would be an impossibility in many lands: Turkey, China, and some of the islands of the sea, would still be without the gospel had the civil “law” been allowed to prevail rather than that higher law—the command of God, the gospel commission. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.9
Even to-day we find various Protestant bodies insisting upon the right to go into Roman Catholic countries, and there not only to teach but to practice contrary to the “laws” of those lands; and when they are arrested and imprisoned under the forms of “law,” they call it religious persecution, as is witnessed by the following letter published in the London Times, of Oct. 23, 1891:— AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.10
Religious Persecution in Portugal.
The Evangelical Alliance has often experienced you kind consideration and ready help in making publicly known cases of intolerant action and oppression against Protestant Christians in foreign countries. We are therefore encouraged to solicit again the favor of your publishing in your columns an extract from a letter from Oporto, dated the 6th inst., reporting how a Protestant named Francisco Bichao, an inhabitant of Aveiro, has been thrown into prison under a sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment and a fine of?2 or in default of payment a further term of three months’ imprisonment. The offenses charged against him, before the civil court, was for refusing to take off his cap to a cross carried at a funeral. He appealed against the cruel sentence, and the letter above referred to now reports as follows:— AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.11
“The appeal to the Superior Court at Oporto was successful, inasmuch as the sentence was annulled on a technical point—viz., that it had not been clearly proved that he had wilfully treated the State Church with disrespect. His enemies, who were powerful, then carried the case to the Supreme Court at Lisbon, and here the original sentence was confirmed, on the ground that it was sufficiently proved that he committed the act wittingly. As the constitution grants liberty of conscience, provided that the State religion is respected, it is easy to see how a point can be stretched even to a year’s imprisonment for not removing a cap to a passing cross (not a crucifix) carried at a funeral. The sentence hung fire for a time, but when the abortive attempt to establish a republic failed at Oporto on the 31st of January last, the government was enabled to use extraordinary restrictions of private liberties, as well as to gag the Liberal press. This was the opportunity, and Bichao was arrested on the 28th of February, and placed in Aveiro prison. He wrote to me on the 24th advising me of the fact, and adding, ‘But I am happy; blessed be the name of the Lord.’ AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.12
“We hoped that the usual Easter list of pardons might have included his name, but were disappointed in this, and there he lies, to the shame of popery, for it was a purely clerical persecution, and to the disgrace of Portugal, which poses as a Liberal nation, and in many respects is truly Liberal. But the Concordat with Rome still gives the priests great power when they choose to use it against the freedom of the gospel.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.13
Your faithfully, AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.14
J. FIELD, General, K. C. B., AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.15
A. J. ARNOLD, Secretaries. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.16
Evangelical Alliance, 7 Adam-street, Strand. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.17
London, W. E., Oct. 13, 1891. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.18
This missionary, it will be observed, was imprisoned for not removing his cap to a cross at a funeral. He doubtless regarded such an act as idolatry and so refused to uncover his head in the presence of the passing cross; and Protestants everywhere say that he did right. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.19
More recently, Methodist missionaries in various South American countries have been imprisoned for circulating among the people, copies of the sacred Scriptures in the vulgar tongue. Roman Catholicism is established by statute in those countries, and the Bible is, except by the permission of the priests in special cases, a prohibited book. To circulate it among the people is a violation of the “law,” and yet the Protestant world applauds the disobedience of these missionaries and styles their prosecution, religious persecution, as it certainly is. AMS October 3, 1895, page 305.20
The Converted Catholic, for September, edited by “Father” O’Connor, a Presbyterian minister of this city, contains a long article entitled, “The Methodist Victory over Roman Intolerance,” giving a history of the petition sent to the pope by the Methodist ministers of Chicago, asking the Roman Catholic Church to use its influence in securing for Protestants in the countries of South America and elsewhere the same liberty that is enjoyed by Roman Catholics in the United States. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.1
It is made very clear in this article, and in the comments upon the action of the Methodist ministers, quoted from other papers, that while the laws under which Methodist colporters are imprisoned in South America for selling and giving away Bibles, are civil statutes, they are, nevertheless, begotten by religious bigotry and born of religious intolerance. The Chicago Tribune, in its issue of July 31, said:— AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.2
The contention of the cardinal secretary of the holy see, to the effect that the condition of things in the South American States is dependent upon the civil laws will be shown to be a technicality, since in the States named the civil laws are inspired by the Roman Catholic Church. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.3
Commenting upon the same subject, the Northwestern Christian Advocate, of July 3, says:— AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.4
It is well understood that laws there in force are shaped to please the dominant church. Rome can secure in South America and other papal States, whatever laws it pleases. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.5
And to the same intent, the Cumberland Presbyterian, of Nashville, in its issue of July 11, says:— AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.6
It is true, also, if intolerance and persecution continue in South America it will be because the Roman Church wills it. Rome, through its bishops and priests, really shapes the laws and the policy of the government in all these papal States. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.7
In view of the principles herein stated, and the admission of these principles by representative Protestant papers, we would venture to again suggest that the imprisonment of Methodist missionaries in Roman Catholic countries for violating “civil laws,” which require them to uncover their heads in the presence of the host or the passing cross, and which forbid them to obey the gospel commission by putting in the hands of the people the Scriptures in their own language, differ not one iota in principle from the laws which in this so-called Protestant country require the observance of Sunday. In Portugal and some other Roman Catholic countries, everybody is required to show respect for the established religion by taking off his hat when a religious procession passes along the street. In this country everybody is required to show respect for a statute-intrenched dogma of the prevailing religion by abstaining from work upon Sunday, and by obeying a “law” which forbids men to testify to what they believe to be truth that they are under obligation to give to mankind, by obeying the fourth commandment. We would ask our Methodist and Presbyterian and Christian friends of other churches, how they can consistently call the arrest and imprisonment of Protestant missionaries in Roman Catholic countries, religious persecution, and at the same time insist that the imprisonment and driving of Adventists in chain-gangs is only enforcing “civil law.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.8
It is just as true in this country that the “laws” which imprison Adventists and drive them in chain-gangs, are inspired and maintained by the Protestant churches, as it is that the laws which imprison Methodist and other Protestant missionaries in South America, Portugal and Spain, are inspired by the Roman Catholic Church of those countries. Hence if any obligation rests upon the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church to use their influence in favor of the repeal of the “laws” which imprison Protestant missionaries in Roman Catholic countries, the Protestant churches in this country are under just the same obligation to give their influence to the repeal of the “laws” which make persecution for conscience’ sake possible here. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.9
“Religion in the Constitution” American Sentinel 10, 39, p. 306.
THE Mail and Express, in commenting upon the political situation in New York says:— AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.1
The sabbath, as an American institution, is imbedded in Federal and State constitutions and laws. Our national Constitution has only two references to religion, one which specifically says that Sunday is not to be counted as a legislative day, and the other which declares that “no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.2
Mr. Warner Miller, the author of the Sunday plank in the Republican platform of this State, also says, as reported in the New York World, that “the Constitution clearly recognizes the sabbath,” since “on that day no measure may become a law, no business be legally transacted, and no one elected to office may take oath on that day.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.3
But this, as the World points out, is not a recognition of Sunday as the “Christian sabbath,” but as a legal holiday merely. There are other legal holidays beside Sunday—the first day of January, the thirteenth day of May, the fourth of July, the first Monday in September, the last Thursday in November, and the twenty-fifth day of December—on all of which cessation from business has legal sanction. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.4
In its effort to find “the sabbath as an American institution,” in the Constitution, the Mail and Express overlooks that plainest of all references to religion in the Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Perhaps there was a reason for passing this by, for this is certainly very far from being a recognition of the “American sabbath.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.5
Of course, if the sabbath is “an American institution,” it might be expected to have recognition and sanction in American laws, even that supreme law, the Constitution. But a sabbath which is an American institution cannot be God’s sabbath, which he commands to be kept holy, for that was instituted by him at creation. Neither can it be the Sunday sabbath, for that is observed in all civilized countries, and was instituted in remote ages of antiquity. The simple truth is, that the Sabbath and American institutions are things wholly separate and distinct from each other. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.6
Our forefathers who framed the Constitution evidently did not regard the Sabbath as American in its origin; and it is certainly not strange that under their wise direction neither it nor any other religious institution found recognition in that embodiment of our fundamental law. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.7
“The Sunday Law in New York” American Sentinel 10, 39, pp. 306, 307.
WE made brief mention in these columns last week of the action of the Republican party in adopting this as one plank of its platform: “We favor the maintenance of the Sunday law in the interests of labor and morality.” We pointed out at the time that this meant nothing so far as the suppression of the liquor traffic was concerned; for the expression, “the Sunday law,” can mean nothing else than the whole body of law upon that subject. It cannot and does not mean simply a law forbidding the sale of liquor on Sunday, for as we showed a week ago, it just as much pledges the party adopting it to the enforcement of the statute forbidding the sale of ice on Sunday, as it does to the enforcement of the statute which forbids the sale of liquor upon that day. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.1
We feel no interest, however, in this as a political question. We are interested in it only so far as it shows the temper of the people in regard to the making, sustaining, and enforcing of laws for the observance of Sunday. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.2
The AMERICAN SENTINEL is and always has been opposed to the traffic in intoxicating beverages. We believe that it is an enemy to civilized society; that it increases the burden of taxation; that it makes widows, orphans, paupers, and criminals; that it endangers life and property, and that the evils resulting from it are not limited to those who actually drank intoxicating liquors. In short, we do not believe that “whiskey hurts only those who drink it.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.3
Being opposed to the traffic in intoxicating liquors as a whole, and believing that it is evil and only evil continually, we are, of course, opposed to any law which, by prohibiting it one day in the week, by implication legalizes it and makes it respectable upon the other six days of the week. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.4
The Methodist General Conference of 1888, adopted this: “We are unalterably opposed to the enactment of laws that propose by license-taxing or otherwise to regulate the drink traffic.” Doubtless the thought underlying this resolution was that by government license, the liquor traffic becomes a protected monopoly and a political power; and that by withholding license the monopoly would be destroyed, the political power of the traffic be broken, and that general prohibition would follow. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.5
We are likewise “opposed to the enactment of laws that propose by license-taxing or otherwise to regulate the drink traffic;” and for this reason if there were no other we oppose all laws prohibiting liquor-selling only on Sunday. And if the Methodists meant what they said in 1888, they must likewise oppose all laws which prohibit the selling of liquor upon Sunday only. Certainly the expression, “or otherwise,” is broad enough to cover such regulation of the drink traffic; so that we stand upon this question shoulder to shoulder with the great Methodist Church, so far as it stands true to the action of the General Conference of 1888. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.6
But as we have before remarked, Sunday laws are not designed as temperance measures, but to guard from “desecration” a day held by many people to be sacred to the service of God. A few years since, the California Prohibitionist, published in San Francisco, said that if saloons would close on Sunday, it was about all that could be asked of them: and as we said last week, Sunday liquor-selling is not regarded by Sunday-law advocates generally, as any worse than other forms of Sunday “desecration.” For instance, the Christian Statesman recently remarked: “Sabbath laws need enforcement against the excursion as well as against the saloon;” and the Baptist Examiner said, in its issue of September 19: “Do the liquor dealers and their friends fully understand what they are doing in their efforts to keep saloon doors open on the Lord’s day? Do they not see that they are forcing the issue—a clean sabbath or entire prohibition?” This is, as we said last week, saying to the liquor traffic just as plainly as words can express it, Coöperate with us in Sunday observance and your traffic is safe six days in the week; resist our efforts for general Sunday observance, and we will see to it that your traffic is prohibited every day. AMS October 3, 1895, page 306.7
The Voice, the great prohibition organ of this city, has in its issue of September 20, two articles, touching the Sunday-law plank, adopted by the Republican Convention at Saratoga. The Voice shows quite conclusively by quotations from prominent Republicans in this city, that the resolution referred to means little or nothing in respect to Sunday-liquor selling. As reported in the Tribune, of September 19, Mr. Warner Miller, the author of the resolution, said of it: “I do not see how any one can assert that the Republican party is a prohibition party from the resolution which I introduced.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.1
This shows very clearly that Mr. Miller did not mean that the resolution should be understood as pledging the Republican party to oppose the liquor traffic. The resolution is simply in the interests of general Sunday observance. AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.2
As we said before, we have not the slightest interest in this as a political question. We do not care which party is successful in New York State this fall. There are good men in all parties, and we doubt not that for the year to come, either party would give the State a fairly decent administration; but we do want the people to understand the issue before them in regard to Sunday and its enforcement by civil statute. We want our readers to know that Sunday enforcement has become a political question. 1 It has become a question upon which political parties feel bound to express themselves in their platforms; and the politicians, for the sake of gaining votes, are willing to pledge themselves to enact, maintain and enforce such laws, and this regardless of the inherent right of every man to be left perfectly free in matters of religion. We believe that the present agitation in this State for the closing of saloons on Sunday, will not result in curtailing the liquor traffic in the slightest degree, that just as much liquor will be sold and drank as formerly; that just as many men will be drunken as formerly; and that just as many innocent persons will suffer as the result of the liquor traffic as formerly. But religious bigotry and intolerance will be increased; high-sounding professions will be made. Sunday will be honored in the eyes of the people; and this is the great object which the master-mind that is back of all this Sunday agitation has in view. AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.3
“‘Blue Laws’” American Sentinel 10, 39, p. 307.
A WELL-KNOWN Washington pastor, Dr. B. Sunderland, has taken us severely to task for using the term “Blue Laws.” He says:— AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.1
You ought never to be guilty of citing as a part of the “Blue Laws” of the colonies the part about a man’s kissing his wife on Sunday, etc., because no such thing ever existed in fact; they were a compilation of a notorious Tory made out of whole cloth, to cast ridicule and contempt on the colonists; and as intelligent men you should know this and not resort to such a species of falsehood and misrepresentation to bolster up your case. AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.2
We are well aware that no such code of laws ever actually existed as that sometimes printed as the “Blue Laws of Connecticut.” But we are also well aware that “laws” did exist in the New England colonies, notably in Massachusetts and Connecticut, under which the ministers and magistrates assumed authority to punish nearly all the acts said to have been forbidden by the “Blue Laws.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.3
For instance, there was no “law” which said in so many words that a man should not kiss his wife on Sunday; but for all that, as related by Alice Morse Earle, on page 247 of “The Sabbath in Puritan New England.” “Captian Kemble of Boston was in 1655 set for two hours in the public stocks for his ‘lewd and unseemly behavior,’ which consisted in his kissing his wife ‘publicquely’ on the sabbath day, upon the doorstep of his house, when he had just returned from a voyage and absence of three years.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.4
They fact is that the authorities of those days assumed to regulate nearly all the private affairs of life, and the term “Blue laws” has come to be applied by common consent and usage to all such improper and meddlesome legislation; and by using the phrase, one no more indorses all that the “Reverend” Samuel Peters, “a notorious Tory,” wrote about the “laws” of Connecticut, than does one using the phrase “Siren song” indorse the mythological story of the three sea nymphs said to frequent an island near the coast of Italy, and lure mariners to destruction by their sweet songs. The term “Siren” has come to mean “something which is insidious or deceptive,” just as the phrase “Blue Laws” means improper and meddlesome statutes which invade unnecessarily the private life of the citizen. It is in this sense that the AMERICAN SENTINEL has used the term, and in this sense we shall continue to use it. AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.5
“New York Democrats and the Sunday ‘Law’” American Sentinel 10, 39, pp. 307, 308.
WE have considered elsewhere in this issue the attitude of the Republican party of New York towards the Sunday statute, as expressed at their late convention, in the words, “We favor the maintenance of the Sunday law in the interests of labor and morality.” AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.1
It might naturally have been expected that the Democratic party, having always posed as the political representative and exponent of the principle of personal liberty, would take issue squarely with the former party, and stand in favor of that liberty which every Sunday “law” must necessarily invade. This, however, it has not done. AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.2
The difference between the two leading political parties of the State upon this point is not a difference in principle, but only in degree. AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.3
The one party favors the maintenance of the Sunday statute in the strict sense in which its enforcement has been recently conducted in this city, and which is demanded by the ecclesiastics who aim at securing a rigid observance of the day. The other party also favors a Sunday “law,” but wants one that will secure “a proper observation” of the day, an “orderly Sunday,” and that shall have the support of public opinion. AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.4
Such importance has the question of Sunday observance now attained in the Empire State, that neither of the two leading political parties dares to pass it over in silence. Neither dares to go before the people without having avowed itself to be in favor of legal Sunday observance. The only difference between them is in regard to the nature of the observance to be thus secured. The Republican party believes that it will receive popular support in standing for a strict form of Sunday observance, and the Democratic party believes that the seal of popular approval will be given to an attitude favoring a less rigid Sunday observance, such as would allow the obtaining of beer and other alcoholic drinks on that day, and in its general aspect would be opposed to a “blue law” Sunday, but which, nevertheless, would admit of such restrictions as might be enacted without popular disapproval. AMS October 3, 1895, page 307.5
As stated elsewhere, we take no special interest in the outcome of this political contest. We stand opposed to all Sunday laws, because they all, whether strict or “liberal,” invade the realm of conscience. They all, whether avowedly or not, demand a religious observance of the day, since they all demand cessation from work, which is a leading feature of that Sabbath observance which is commanded by God. AMS October 3, 1895, page 308.1
The Sunday “law” is now the leading issue between the two leading political parties of the leading State in the Union; and that issue, as we have seen, concerns only the degree of Sunday observance to be embodied in the “law.” If the Republican party proves successful, as it has in recent elections, the result will doubtless be attributed to its strong Sunday attitude, and that attitude, having been thus apparently approved by the popular will, will be considered the proper one for the party in all contests, both State and National. AMS October 3, 1895, page 308.2
And thus the way is wide open for the Sunday issue to move rapidly forward to a position of supreme interest and importance in the nation. That it will do this there is not a shadow of doubt. And the presentation of that true personal liberty which is the Creator’s gift to every man, cannot be left to any political party. That work must be done by those who know that perfect liberty that comes from God, through an acquaintance with the gospel of Jesus Christ. AMS October 3, 1895, page 308.3