The American Sentinel 10
October 10, 1895
“God’s Warning Against Yielding to Sunday Laws” American Sentinel 10, 40, pp. 313, 314.
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL has from the first opposed all movements in this country and elsewhere the success of which, through religious legislation, meant a union of Church and State. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.1
It has opposed such movements because they were contrary to natural right and justice, contrary to the free exercise of conscience, and against the interests of both the State and the Church. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.2
But there is another reason, and one of immeasurable weight and significance, wherefore the SENTINEL raises its voice against them; and that one is based upon those interests and that relation of the individual which are paramount to all others, namely, his eternal interests and his relation to his Creator. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.3
That reason is stated in the plainest and most emphatic language by God himself. Let it be remembered that these movements for securing religious legislation relate almost wholly to a divine institution—the Sabbath—and that they exalt and aim to thrust upon the world by force a day which has been made a rival to the Sabbath God has appointed, and which he commands all men to keep. Therefore it is not strange that God should have spoken explicitly upon this subject, and should have uttered a most solemn warning against yielding allegiance in this matter of Sabbath observance to the power which has exalted itself against him. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.4
That warning is given in these words: “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” Revelation 14:9-11. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.5
Let all the world hear, and tremble at these words of the most high God! AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.6
The very essence of worship is obedience. The verse following those we have quoted reads: “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” The saints—those who worship God—are those who keep his commandments. Whoever does not keep God’s commandments, worships not him, but another and opposing power. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.7
The Saviour, in his condemnation of Phariseeism, said, “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Matthew 15:9. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.8
The “beast” and his “image” to which this warning message of Revelation 14 relates, are mentioned in the preceding chapter; and there are recorded some of the characteristics which identify them, and an outline of the work which they are to do. Verses 1-10 of this chapter are descriptive of “the beast.” The remainder of the chapter speaks of “another beast,” in nature like the first, though lamblike in appearance, which says “to them that dwell on the earth that they should make an image to the beast,” and causes them—as many as will yield to its power—to receive the “mark” of the beast in their right hand or in their forehead. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.9
It scarcely need be said that this language cannot have reference to literal beasts. No literal beast could talk to people and compel them to do work, as is here described. They are symbols which prophetic scripture employs in speaking of earthly governments. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.10
Among the characteristics of the “beast” are “seven heads and ten horns,” the body of a leopard, the feet of a bear, and the mouth of a lion. Verses 1, 2. A lion, a bear, and a leopard, are symbols used in the prophecy of Daniel to represent three successive universal empires,—Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Grecia. Daniel 7:9-6, 17, 23. After them arose Rome, greatest and most powerful of all, which ruled over their territory and incorporated what was theirs into itself. Hence it would not be inappropriately symbolized by a beast having some of the features of these animals. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.11
Daniel lived at the time of the empire of Babylon; and the fourth kingdom which arose after his time was the kingdom of Rome. And even to-day there is a kingdom of Rome—a spiritual empire which arose upon the ruins of the civil empire, and still continues to wield despotic sway over untold millions of subjects. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.12
This “beast” had seven heads and ten horns, and upon its horns were ten crowns. When the civil empire of Rome was broken up, it became divided into ten kingdoms (see Daniel 2:4-44), and this divided state continues to-day, notwithstanding the efforts of several great military leaders to weld them again into one empire. But, meanwhile, the spiritual empire of Rome grew and extended over all these nations; and though materially checked by the Reformation, continues a mighty and growing empire to-day. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.13
One of the seven heads of “the beast” was “wounded unto death;” but “the deadly wound was healed; and all the world wondered after the beast.” AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.14
The head governs the body. The heads of “the beast” governed the empire—Rome; not, of course, at the same time, but successively, from its rise down to the present day. Since the kings, the consuls, the triumvirates, the dictators, the emperors, etc., of Rome passed away, the papal head has ruled the empire, though given a deadly wound in modern times by the loss of temporal power. In the palmy days of the papacy she wielded not only spiritual but civil power, forcing kings and emperors to do her bidding; but at last, when the Reformation had checked her influence, the sword of civil power was turned against her. In 1798, a French army entered Rome, took the pope prisoner, and carried him into exile. For a time the papacy seemed to have received her death blow. But, as the prophecy says, “the deadly wound was healed.” A new pope was soon appointed, and with marvelous vitality she rallied in a measure from the shock, and continued on her course. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.15
And the truth is only too plain that in recent times the power of Rome has been fast increasing, her hold strengthening in nearly every civilized land—notably, alas, in our own—upon the agencies through which civil authority is exercised. How long will it be ere she is able once more to control those agencies for her own ends? AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.16
And to-day all the world looks upon her with wonder and growing admiration, and no nation counts itself able to make war with her. Germany, the strongest nation of Europe, with the great Bismarck as its leader, has found itself unable to contend against her. AMS October 10, 1895, page 313.17
The “beast” received his power, and his seat, and great authority, from “the dragon.” The latter is identified in chapter 12 as “that old serpent, called the devil and Satan.” Verse 9. He it was who sought to devour the man child—Christ—as soon as it was born. The visible agent in this attempt was Herod, who, as the Roman governor of Judea, represented the empire under which he ruled, and back of the pagan empire, wielding its power for his own purposes, was Satan, “the prince of this world,” the real enemy with whom Christ contended. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.1
Papal Rome was given the seat of pagan Rome—the “eternal city”—to which power and prestige still adhered; which power and prestige, as the papacy developed, rose to a height which far surpassed that exercised by her pagan predecessor. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.2
There was given unto “the beast” “a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.” “Great” indeed, are the claims put forth by Rome: and her spiritual pretensions, such as the “infallibility” of her head, the power to forgive sins, to grant indulgences, to bind the conscience, etc., are blasphemies of the truest sort. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.3
“It was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.” Here also papal Rome stands without a rival among earthly powers, as witness the long ages of her relentless warfare upon those whom she counted heretics. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.4
It is the “mark” of this “beast” which is sought to be enforced upon all by “another beast” arising “out of the earth.” And the papacy has a mark, a sign of her authority. She affirms that she has this, and her own words tell us what it is. Looking in her doctrinal books, we find:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.5
Q. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days? AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.6
A. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of. 1 AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.7
The commands of Rome as regards her feasts and “holy days” are put forth as of binding obligation upon the consciences of men. And the mark of her asserted authority in this respect is “the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday”! AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.8
In another work we find:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.9
Q. Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept? AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.10
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. 2 AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.11
The Sabbath, God’s own sign of authority, the uplifted badge of the uplifted badge of papal power!—not the true Sabbath, of course, but one of papal manufacture. And there is a method in this madness, a wisdom which is that of a mastermind. For if the papal claim of power to change the Sabbath day to Sunday be the truth, there is no reason why she should not receive the homage and worship of all men,—yes, even of the host of heaven; and he who admits the claim cannot consistently refuse the worship. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.12
This is evident from the nature of the Sabbath institution. It is the divine memorial of creation, the “sign” of Him who has creative power. The possession of creative power distinguishes the true God from all other gods. Psalm 33:6-9; 96:5; Exodus 20:11. The Sabbath is thus the sign of the true God, and by keeping it men show that the true God has their allegiance. This he has himself declared, in these words addressed to his chosen people:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.13
“Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep; for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.” Exodus 31:13. This statement of the purpose of the Sabbath is repeated in Ezekiel 20:12, 20. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.14
And therefore, had the papacy such power as she claims, and of which her change of the Sabbath is her own sign, she would stand superior to God himself, since the actual change by one power of the laws or ordinances of another power, is evidence of the superiority of the former over the latter. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.15
The seventh-day Sabbath is the appointed sign, or mark, of the power and authority of the Creator. The first-day sabbath is the acknowledged sign of papal power and authority, her change of the Sabbath being by her own testimony, entirely without scriptural warrant. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.16
This false sign is the “mark” of “the beast,” against which is uttered the fearful warning of Revelation 14:9-11. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.17
And now, with the light of truth before them concerning God’s Sabbath, as it is being everywhere proclaimed by Seventh-day Adventists and others, men are being forced to choose between the Sabbath of God and that of the papacy, by laws which command the observance of the first day of the week. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.18
By those laws, when rigidly enforced, the papal sabbath,—the mark of Rome’s asserted authority and power over the conscience,—will be forced upon all who yield obedience to them; and all such will, by this obedience, acknowledge allegiance to the papacy, and become worshipers of “the beast,” and receivers of his “mark.” AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.19
When the present Sunday laws of this country, and other more oppressive ones that will be made, shall be enforced, there will be in this land a fully-developed and living “image” of the papacy, even of what she was in former days—a Church-and-State power making use of the civil arm to enforce religious dogmas under the penalties of “the law.” AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.20
This is the dark goal to which this country, spite of its Constitution and Declaration of Independence, its wise and noble forefathers, and the principles of liberty and justice bequeathed to it, is now hastening. The prophet on Patmos’ isle beheld in his vision “another beast, coming up out of the earth,” having “two horns like a lamb,” yet speaking “as a dragon.” “Time’s noblest offspring”—and his last—appeared in the field of prophetic vision to close up the drama of human history; there to do a work which belied its lamblike appearance,—even to continue the oppression and persecution of God’s people to the bitter end. He saw it exercising “all the power of the first beast before him.” AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.21
And how long will it be before we also see in dread reality this same thing? Only so long as will be necessary to set up and put in motion the machinery of religio-political design, now being manufactured on every hand, for the enforcement of Sunday observance and other ordinances of “the church.” AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.22
This nation, of lamblike aspect, the refuge for the oppressed of other lands, the chosen standing ground of “liberty enlightening the world,“—which came up not out of the agitated sea of human strife and commotion, amid the overturning of kingdoms, but “out of the earth” like a growing plant, by the settlement of a new country, is sounding a dragon voice in the ears of those who would honor God by keeping his Sabbath, and preparing to force upon them and upon all, so far as oppressive laws can do it, the “mark” of the “beast”—the papal sabbath. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.23
It is yet to do “great wonders” and deceive “them that dwell on the earth by the means of those “miracles” which it will have power to do, for the accomplishment of its oppressive purposes. The decree is to be made that no man may buy or sell “save he that has the mark;” and finally, that as many as will not worship the image of the beast “should be killed.” Revelation 13:13-17. In what has already been done, is contained the pledge of what is yet to be. AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.24
Such is the national prospect; what is our prospect individually? What will be our attitude when the crisis comes? The “law,” with its penalty, is a powerful argument, not convincing the conscience, it is true, but sufficing to change the course of many. The question is, Will that argument prevail with you? Will you receive the “mark” in your forehead, or yield outward allegiance by withholding your right hand from labor on the man-made sabbath, as God commands to be done on his holy day? or will the voice of the dragon be drowned in your ears by the solemn and portentious warning of Heaven,—“If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation”? AMS October 10, 1895, page 314.25
“An Exemption which Does Not Exempt” American Sentinel 10, 40, p. 315.
THE following is from the Boston Herald, of September 30:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.1
Salem street [the Jewish street of Boston], as a commercial mart, was absolutely dead yesterday. All the stores, except those permitted by law to be opened, such as common victuallers’ places and drug stores, were closed, and the usual Sunday activity was veiled by drawn curtains and locked doors. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.2
This change was brought about by the order of Captain Cain, promulgated by his officers in that district, that none of the places of business which were opened for any part of Saturday should be opened on the Lord’s day. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.3
It was expected that there would be objection to the order, and there is, but it was not manifested in any aggressive form. The stores were closed for the time being, but it is the intention of the storekeepers to call the matter to the attention of the courts, and a series of caucuses, of which this subject was the principal theme, were held yesterday on Salem street, between Cross and Prince streets, by a throng of people, which almost completely blocked the ancient thoroughfare. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.4
No definite plan of action has as yet been formulated, but this much can be stated: The shopkeepers, as a rule, are opposed to the order, and will fight it. Whether they will rebel as a body or select some individual to make a test case remains to be decided, but the chances are in favor of this latter plan of action. In the meantime, they will probably ask that the order be not enforced until the final decision of the court is received, so that their business may not be injured during the year or so necessary to a finding. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.5
The Jewish shopkeepers claim they have the right, under the statutes, to continue their business as in the past. The law on the case is found in the last sentence of Section 2, chapter 434, of the Acts of 1895, and is as follows:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.6
“Whoever conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refrains from secular business and labor on that day, shall not be liable to the penalties of this section for performing secular business and labor on the Lord’s day, if he disturbs no other person.” AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.7
For several weeks past there have been complaints and convictions under this statute, the courts holding that the seventh day of the week, in the intention of the law, was from midnight to midnight on Saturday. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.8
The defense of those of the Jewish faith who are interfered with on account of this law is that their Sabbath is celebrated from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, and they claim that if they do open their places of business at six o’clock on Saturday evening they are still entitled to the privilege, both under the Constitution and the statute, to open on Sunday. They claim that the law was intended to apply to them particularly, and to give them certain privileges. They further claim that the law ought to be liberally interpreted, to cover the period of their Sabbath, instead of being applied strictly to the seventh day of the week. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.9
For all these reasons they hold that the merchant or laborer who ceases his labor at six o’clock Friday evening, and abstains from it until that same hour on Saturday evening, is entitled to the privilege of opening his store or resuming his labor on Sunday. This rule is followed by the strict orthodox Jews, but some are not so scrupulous, and, instead of closing at six on Friday evening, do not close until Saturday morning, and then claim the privilege of opening again on Saturday evening, without waiving the right to keep open on Sunday. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.10
The police make no distinction, however. If a man opens his shop for any part of Saturday, regardless of whether or not he had closed Friday evening, he is held to be violating the law, and will be prosecuted. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.11
It is on this point that the light will be based, and the legal contest promises to be an interesting one, and rich in quotations from both Testaments and other authorities as to the nature of the Sabbath and of the Lord’s day. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.12
Behold in this another illustration of the inconsistency of Sunday laws. They exempt from their penalties those who observe the seventh day, because they observe that day “conscientiously.” Because they conscientiously believe that the seventh day is the true Sabbath, and observe it as such, they are allowed to work on Sunday. But now it is determined by the authorities of one of America’s leading cities, that the conscience of the seventh day observer must conform to the secular definition of a day, viz., that it is a period of twenty-four hours, beginning and ending at midnight. Why allow him any freedom of conscience at all, if it is proper to coerce his conscience in this respect? AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.13
Why exempt him from enforced Sunday rest because of his conscience, and again compel him to rest in spite of it? Why respect his conscience on one point of Sabbath observance and override it on another point? Could anything be more inconsistent? Are his rights of conscience any more sacred and worthy of respect at one time than at another? AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.14
Observers of the seventh day conscientiously begin and end the day at sunset. We say conscientiously, because that which directs their consciences in the matter of Sabbath observance, is the Word of God, and the same authority instructs them concerning the beginning of the day. The Scripture says, “the evening and the morning were the first day,” etc. (Genesis 1:5), and again, we have the explicit statement, “From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths.” Leviticus 23:32. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.15
It will be interesting to note whether this action of the Boston authorities will be made to furnish a precedent for the civil authorities elsewhere in applying the “exemption” clause of Sunday statutes. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.16
“‘George Washington’s Admonition’” American Sentinel 10, 40, pp. 315, 316.
THE Mail and Express, of Oct. 3, attempts to make capital for the Sunday-law cause out of the public reverence for the memory of George Washington. To this end it quotes the following words of his, which it styles his “celebrated admonition to the people of the United States“:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.1
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with public and private felicity. It is substantially true that virtue and morality are the necessary springs of popular government. Who that in a sincere friend of free government can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.2
Then it makes this astonishing comment:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.3
The corollary to these propositions of George Washington we find in the Republican State platform of 1895: “We favor the maintenance of the Sunday law in the interests of labor and morality.” AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.4
That religion and morality ought to be respected and cherished by every man, of whatever position or calling, is certainly true; but it is no corollary to this proposition that Sunday laws should be made and enforced upon any person. The one is contradictory to the other; for he who cherishes the Christian religion will respect the conscience of every man, and be entirely opposed to any invasion of conscience by a religious law. If every American citizen in a position of public trust both respected and practiced the principles of Christianity, there would be no Sunday law or other measure of religious legislation enacted in this country, or left upon the statute books of any State. The individual who advocates a law to compel people to pay deference to any religious dogma, shows by that very thing that he has no regard for the teachings of Christ. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.5
Washington’s real attitude with respect to religious legislation, appears from other utterances of his which the Mail and Express finds no occasion to mention. One of these utterances is the following:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.6
Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen, is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.7
And as concerns the propriety of any connection between this Government and Christianity, the view of Washington is clearly shown in the treaty made under his administration with Tripoli, in 1797, which declares that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.8
It is not justification of this adopted Republican principle, to claim that Sunday laws are not religious and do not interfere with the rights of conscience. Every Sunday law demands Sunday rest, and a weekly rest day being a religious institution, since it was established by God as a means of man’s worship of him, the weekly rest is a religious act, and as such must affect the conscience of every Sabbath observer. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.9
The Creator has sole right in the universe to the tribute of a weekly rest; and any such tribute paid to another power, as to the State, not only infringes upon that right, but by that very infringement borrows from it a religious character. AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.10
Quite in keeping with this misrepresentation of Washington, the Mail and Express proceeds to say of the Republican Sunday resolution that, “it harmonizes not only with our whole history as a nation, but also with the spirit and genius of our Constitution,“—that Constitution which prohibits any religious test or qualification for public office, and declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”! AMS October 10, 1895, page 315.11
Truly it is a blind zeal which urges on the leaders in this Sunday-law crusade. AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.1
“The Sabbath Indestructible” American Sentinel 10, 40, p. 316.
IF men would remember that the Sabbath is not a man-made institution, and that it does not partake of the nature and characteristics of that which is man-made, they would see that there is no occasion for concern over the danger that the Sabbath will be destroyed or lost; for no such danger exists. AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.1
The Sabbath was made by God, and is indestructible and unchangeable. It was not made by man’s keeping of it, but by the act of God in resting upon the seventh day, and blessing and sanctifying it. Before man ever kept it, the Sabbath existed as fully and as actually as it does to-day. AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.2
God, not man, made the Sabbath holy; and no man can make it holy now. No man can impart holiness to anything. God alone can do this, and it is only by this act of God that any man can become holy. The most that man can do is to keep holy that which God has made so. AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.3
We are commanded to keep the Sabbath holy; in other words, to keep it as God has made it. He has separated it from the other days of the week, by making it the rest day, the other six being working days. It is our part to see that in our own lives, this arrangement is preserved. AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.4
The danger is not that the Sabbath will be lost, but that men will be lost by failing to do as God has commanded. And as men cannot do as God commands, save as they become identified with Christ, so that He lives in them, as once before he did in the flesh, the perfect life, the need which is indicated by the prevailing worldliness and lawlessness, is for more earnest work in leading souls to Christ, and not for more stringent laws to “preserve” the institution of the Sabbath. AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.5
“‘Grossly Insulted’ and ‘Outraged’” American Sentinel 10, 40, p. 316.
THE Pleasant Hill (Mo.) Gazette, September 6, tells how the citizens of that place were recently “grossly insulted” by certain published utterances regarding a movement which had been started there for a stricter observance of Sunday. The Pleasant Hill Local was the offending party. That paper characterized the movement as narrow-minded, puritanical, and hypocritical, making, however, no mention of any person or church. AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.1
Whereupon the Gazette, as the champion of religion and morality, replied, “The question of Sunday closing here has received a fresh impetus from a scandalous article that appeared in the columns of the moss-covered raglet across the way,” etc.; and the congregation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the following Sunday, passed this resolution:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.2
Inasmuch as every Christian and law-abiding citizen of our town has been grossly insulted by Mr. Race, who so flagrantly outraged all decency by his article in the last issue of his paper, and believing our laws most wholesome and necessary for the public good, therefore, AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.3
Resolved, That we denounce said article as iniquitous and anarchistical. AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.4
We mention the incident as furnishing a sample of the temper and spirit of those zealous for Sunday laws. It is plainly not the spirit and temper of the meek Man of Nazareth. AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.5
The mere denouncing of the Sunday-law movement is regarded by Sunday observers as grossly insulting, flagrantly outrageous, and anarchistical. What, then, would be their feelings if this offending editor possessed the power, and used it, to put them in prison and in the chain-gang for refusing obedience to a law compelling them to rest on the seventh day of the week? AMS October 10, 1895, page 316.6
“Note” American Sentinel 10, 40, p. 319.
THE Catholic Review, of this city, is a champion of rigid Sunday observances. Speaking of those who favor a “liberal” Sunday, it says:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 319.1
It is full time, however, that these imported “Liberals,” whether actuated by the interests of the brewers and saloon-keepers, or by the wish to undermine the Christian character of our institutions, should try to understand the fundamental fact that this is a Christian land. The next fact growing out of this is that Sunday as the Lord’s day, and not a secular holiday, is fundamental to our laws, forms an inherent part of the unwritten constitution, and therefore cannot be “liberalized,” by any mere statute of the legislature. AMS October 10, 1895, page 319.2
If this be a Christian land, then it must be, in the opinion of the Catholic Review, a Catholic Christian land, since the papal church does not recognize Protestantism as being of a Christian character. This is a claim which the Catholic Church has already advanced, and which it will not be slow to establish, by every device in its power. There is in this “Christian nation” doctrine a pent-up flood of religious animosity and strife; for let the idea once become settled in all minds that this is a “Christian land,” in a governmental sense, and it will become at once imperative to determine who are the Christians. And while each separate denomination can settle the question satisfactorily among themselves, there will be unending difficulty in settling it satisfactorily for all. Old controversies will be revived and new ones will be added; and those who finally establish themselves as the “Christians” to whom this land belongs, will have to do so by intrigue and force rather than by the testimony of Christian lives. AMS October 10, 1895, page 319.3
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 40, p. 320.
WE print on page 317 an article entitled, “That Resolution at Saratoga.” It is from Dr. E. T. Hiscox, the well-known Baptist minister and writer, author of the “Baptist Manual.” AMS October 10, 1895, page 320.1
We believe that Dr. Hiscox’s statement as to the practice of Seventh-day Baptists in the matter of Sunday work is correct, and the same is equally true of Seventh-day Adventists. Every consistent Seventh-day Adventist must obey the Golden Rule, therefore no Seventh-day Adventist can render himself unnecessarily obnoxious to anybody upon any day. The consistent Sabbatarian cannot observe Sunday any more than Daniel could obey the decree of the king forbidding any man to ask any petition of any god or man for thirty days; but every Seventh-day Adventist can do to others as he would have them do to him; and as a class, this is what Seventh-day Adventists try to do. AMS October 10, 1895, page 320.2
A QUEER scene was witnessed last week in a Brooklyn court when a Sabbatarian was summoned to court to defend his right to retain the guardianship of his own children. The basis of the action was that in observing the seventh day he was hindered from earning as much as he night otherwise do, and that therefore he was not a proper person to have the custody of his own children. AMS October 10, 1895, page 320.3
It was charged that he had actually resigned a lucrative position in the New York Post Office because of his conscientious regard for the seventh day, and his unwillingness to work upon that day. This was held to be evidence that he was a monomaniac upon that subject. The attorney, who was prosecuting the case, got the man to actually “confess” that he felt that he ought to obey his conscience; that he ought to do what he believed was right regardless of consequences. It is true that the man is now earning $15 a week, but that is only about half what he received in the post office, and it seemed to be quite beyond the comprehension of anybody connected with the case that any sane man would think of surrendering a position that was paying nearly $30 a week for one in which he could earn only half that sum, merely that he might obey a commandment of God. AMS October 10, 1895, page 320.4
It may not be out of place to mention in this connection some comments made by an Ohio paper upon the persecution of Sabbatarians in Tennessee. This paper, The Institute Bell, deplores the intolerance and bigotry of those who are prime movers in this persecution, but at the same time makes an “argument,” which shows conclusively that the editor has no proper conception of what it is to have a genuine conscientious conviction. The fact is that there is too much made of convenience and not enough of conscience. Custom and expediency are set above conscience, and while everybody grants as a theory that people ought to do right, very few realize that a man who violates his conscience for any reason whatever, sins both against God and his own soul, thus separating himself from God and losing his own self-respect and weakening his own moral character. AMS October 10, 1895, page 320.5
THE following item is from the Sun of the 1st inst.:— AMS October 10, 1895, page 320.6
The Joint Arbitration Committee of the bakers’ unions reported yesterday that at a meeting in 263 Bowery, the unions reported that they were dissatisfied with the way President Roosevelt of the Police Board is enforcing the Sunday laws. There is a law, they said, by which bakeries and bakery stores must be closed at a certain hour on Sunday forenoon. A committee was appointed to see him regarding the enforcement of this law. The unions says that if Mr. Roosevelt is sincere in his professions he will have to look after the bakeries as well as the saloons. AMS October 10, 1895, page 320.7
We remarked last week that a demand for “liberal Sunday laws” were in a position to consistently demand anything in that direction. Most of them have, no doubt, at some time or other, given their influence in favor of making or enforcing so-called laws to compel other people to cease doing something on Sunday, that they might properly engage in were it not for the “law,” thus restricting the liberties of those who are engaged in certain lines of business, and therefore forfeiting their right to protest when the so-called Sunday “laws” infringe their rights. AMS October 10, 1895, page 320.8
Doubtless many of the bakers who are demanding that the bake-shops close at a certain hour on Sunday forenoon, would like to adjourn to the saloon or beer garden, which they would of course, wish to have open; but it will be very difficult for them to persuade the majority of the people that a place ought to be open for the sale of intoxicating liquors if shops for the sale of bread are closed; so that really such a demand is a demand that they be permitted to do as they please on Sunday, but that other persons be restricted in their liberties. AMS October 10, 1895, page 320.9
There is nothing in the world to prevent a baker from closing his shop at any hour, and there is no reason in the world why another should close at the same hour if he does not wish to. It is simply selfishness that demands it. AMS October 10, 1895, page 320.10