The American Sentinel 7
September 15, 1892
“Some Scraps of New England History” 1 The American Sentinel 7, 36, pp. 283, 284.
THE SUFFERINGS OF THE QUAKERS
NOTWITHSTANDING these laws and penalties, and the spirit to inflict the penalties in the severest way, the Quakers continued to come. In fact, wherever such laws were, that was the very place where the Quakers wished to be, because they were opposed to every kind of soul-oppression and every form of the union of Church and State. Not only in this, but in almost everything else, their views made them objects of special hatred to the theocrats of Massachusetts. They recognized no such distinction among Christians as clergy and laity, and could neither be coaxed nor forced to pay tithes. They refused to do military service, and would not take an oath. They would not take their hats off either in church or in court. “In doctrine their chief peculiarity was the assertion of an ‘inward light,’ by which every individual is to be guided in his conduct of life.” And “the doctrine of the ‘inward light,’ or of private inspiration, was something especially hateful to the Puritan.” Another thing no less hateful to the Puritan than this, was their refusal to keep Sunday in the Puritan way. They called “in question the propriety of Christians turning the Lord’s day into a Jewish Sabbath.” They were denounced as infidels, blasphemers, agents of the devil, and were counted as easily guilty of every heresy and every crime in the Puritan theoretical catalogue. AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.1
Admission to the confederacy of the New England colonies had been absolutely refused Rhode Island, on account of its principles of liberty of conscience; but hatred of the Quakers led Massachusetts colony in 1657 to ask Rhode Island to join the confederacy in the endeavor to save New England from the Quakers. “They sent a letter to the authorities of that colony, signing themselves their loving friends and neighbors, and beseeching them to preserve the whole body of colonists against ‘such a pest,’ by banishing and excluding all Quakers, a measure to which ‘the rule of charity did oblige them.’” AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.2
But Roger Williams was still president of Rhode Island, and, true to his principles, he replied: “We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal condition. As for these Quakers, we find that where they are most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all desire to come. Any breach of the civil law shall be punished, but the freedom of different consciences shall be respected.” AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.3
This reply enraged the whole confederacy. Massachusetts threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island. In this strait Rhode Island, by Roger Williams, appealed for protection to Cromwell, who now ruled England. The appeal presented the case as it was, but that which made it of everlasting importance, as the grandest and most touching appeal in all history, is the piteous plea, “But whatever fortune may befall, let us not be compelled to exercise any civil power over men’s consciences.” AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.4
In this year, October 14, another law was passed against Quakers, in which it was enacted that— AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.5
If any person or persons within this jurisdiction shall henceforth entertain and conceal any such Quaker or Quakers, or other blasphemous heretics, knowing them so to be, every such person shall forfeit to the country forty shillings for every such hour’s entertainment and concealment of any Quaker or Quakers, etc., as aforesaid, and shall be committed to prison as aforesaid, till forfeiture be fully satisfied and paid: and it is further ordered that if any Quaker or Quakers shall presume, after they have once suffered what the law requires, to come into this jurisdiction, every such male Quaker shall for the first offense have one of his ears cut off, and be kept at work in the house of correction till he can be sent away at his own charge, and for the second offense shall have his other ear out off: and every woman Quaker that has fulfilled the law here that shall presume to come into this jurisdiction, shall be severely whipped, and kept at the house of correction at work, till she be sent away at her own charge, and so also for her coming again she shall be alike used as aforesaid: and for every Quaker, he or she, that shall presume a third time herein again to offend, they shall have their tongues burned through with a red-hot iron, and be kept at the house of correction close to work, till they be sent away at their own charge. And it is further ordered that all and every Quaker arising from among ourselves, shall be dealt with, and suffer the like punishments, as the law provides against foreign Quakers. AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.6
The Quakers, however, not only continued to come, and to come again when imprisoned, whipped, and banished; but their preachings, and much more their persecutions, raised up others in the colonies. This result followed so promptly that May 20, 1658, the following statute was enacted:— AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.7
That Quakers and such accursed heretics, arising among ourselves, may be dealt with according to their deserts, and that their pestilent errors and practices may be speedily prevented, it is hereby ordered, as an addition to the former laws against Quakers, that every such person or persons, professing any of their pernicious ways by speaking, writing, or by meeting on the Lord’s day, or at any other time, to strengthen themselves, or seduce others to their diabolical doctrines, shall, after due means of conviction, incur the penalty ensuing; that is, every person so meeting, shall pay to the country for every time ten shillings; and every one speaking in such meeting, shall pay five pounds apiece; and in case any such person, after having been punished by scourging or whipping for such, according to the former law, shall be still kept at work in the house of correction, till they put in security with two sufficient men, that they shall not any more vent their hateful errors, nor use their sinful practices, or else shall depart this jurisdiction at their own charges, and if any of them return again, then each such person shall incur the penalty of the law formerly made for strangers. AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.8
In 1658 “Rev.” John Norton, supported by the rest of the clergy, circulated a petition praying that the penalty of death should be visited upon all Quakers who should return after having been banished. The Board of Commissioners of the United Colonies met in Boston in September. The petition was presented to the Board, which in response advised the general court of each colony to enact such a law. Accordingly, October 16, the general court of Massachusetts enacted the following law:— AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.9
Whereas there is a pernicious sect, commonly called Quakers, lately risen up, who by word and writing have published and maintained many dangerous and horrid tenets, and do take upon them to change and alter the received and laudable customs of our nation, not giving civil respects to equals, or reverence to superiors; whose actions tend to undermine civil government, and to destroy the order of the churches, by denying all established forms of worship, and by withdrawing from orderly church fellowship, allowed and proved by all orthodox professors of truth, and instead thereof, and in opposition thereto, frequently meet by themselves, insinuating themselves into the minds of the simple, or such as are least affected to the order and government of the church and commonwealth, whereby diverse particular inhabitants have been infected, notwithstanding all former laws made, have been upon the experience of their arrogant and bold determinations, to disseminate their practice amongst us, prohibiting their coming into this jurisdiction, they have not been deterred from their impious attempts to undermine our peace and hazard our ruin. AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.10
For prevention thereof, this court doth order and enact that every person or persons, of the accursed sect of Quakers, who is not an inhabitant of, but is found within, this jurisdiction, shall be apprehended without warrant, where no magistrate is at hand, by any constable, commissioner, or selectman, and conveyed from constable to constable, to the next magistrate who shall commit the said person to close prison, there to remain (without bail) till the next court of assistants, where they shall have a legal trial: and being convicted [Note:—“For which conviction, it was counted sufficient that they appeared with their hats on and said ‘thee’ and ‘thou’] to be of the sect of the Quakers, shall be sentenced to be banished upon pain of death: and that every inhabitant of this jurisdiction being convicted to be of the aforesaid sect, either by taking up, publishing, or defending the horrid opinion of the Quakers, or stirring up of mutiny, sedition, or rebellion against the government, or by taking up their abusive and destructive practices, viz., denying civil respect to equals and superiors, and withdrawing from our church assemblies, and instead thereof frequenting meetings of their own in opposition to our church order, or by adhering to, or approving of, any known Quaker, and the tenets practiced, that are opposite to the orthodox received opinions of the godly, and endeavoring to disaffect others to civil government and church order, or condemning the practice and proceedings of this court against the Quakers, manifesting thereby their plotting with those whose design is to overthrow the order established in Church and State, every such person convicted before the said court of assistants, in manner aforesaid, shall be committed to close prison for one month, and then, unless they choose voluntarily to depart this jurisdiction, shall give bond for their good behavior, and appear at the next court, where continuing obstinate, and refusing to retract and reform their aforesaid opinions, they shall be sentenced to banishment upon pain of death; and any one magistrate upon information given him of any such person, shall cause him to be apprehended, and shall commit any such person, according to his discretion, till he comes to trial as aforesaid. AMS September 15, 1892, page 283.11
Nor were any of these laws in any sense a dead letter. They were enforced in the regular Puritan way. AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.1
“The Gospel: What It Is, and Its Work As Opposed to the Mystery of Iniquity” 1 The American Sentinel 7, 36, p. 284.
(Concluded.)
THE National Reform Association, the American Sabbath Union, and this whole ecclesiastical combination who have been working for this for these twenty-nine years. Will they stand silent and do nothing? Is there not here to-day an ecclesiastical organization anxious to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for itself, just as there was then to raise a like dispute? AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.1
Then can any one doubt, or fail to see, that under the circumstances and in the condition of the times, in view of the position the church occupied at that time, just as certainly as that edict of Constantine in favor of Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire brought the Papacy, and out of that came all that the Papacy ever was, just so certainly under the like circumstances and the like conditions of church ambition, out of this Supreme Court decision making Christianity the religion of this nation,—just so certainly in this is the image of the beast, and out of it will come everything that the prophecy ever tells about. AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.2
We are not the only ones able to see these things. That was one of the things that was held in mind when this government was made. Before making the national Constitution, there was a movement in Virginia to establish the Christian religion—not the Catholic nor the Protestant, but “the Christian religion;” that is all. Let me read to you what James Madison saw in that:— AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.3
“Who does not see that the same authority can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?” AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.4
Constantine favored Christianity at the first, just as a whole—“the whole body of Christians.” And then he established a particular sect, the “Catholic Church of the Christians,” just as easily as he did the first. Just so certain as the Supreme Court of the United States has established Christianity as the religion of this nation, in exclusion of all other religion of this nation, in exclusion of all other religions, just so certain will it, or some other power, have to establish one particular sect in exclusion of all other sects. The Supreme Court hints at Protestantism; but if that is it, somebody will have to decide which sect of Protestantism it is. I do not know who will decide it; whether the Supreme Court, or Congress, or by national election campaign, I cannot say; but it will be decided in some way. It is bound to come. AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.5
Madison and those of his time knew just as certainly as they knew anything, that if Christianity was established as the State religion of Virginia, there must be a particular sect established, and everybody else be oppressed. Not only that, but he saw this:— AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.6
“Instead of holding forth an asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution.” AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.7
Now mark; they held this position; they had experienced this in their day. We have had some of it too in our day. They saw in the mere proposition to make Christianity the established religion of Virginia, “a signal of persecution.” Just as certain as the proposition to make Christianity the established religion of the State of Virginia was the signal of persecution in that State, just so certainly this Supreme Court decision making Christianity the religion of this Nation, is a signal of persecution through all the Nation. But I read again from Madison’s remonstrance against that:— AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.8
“Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree.” AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.9
In that proposition to establish “the Christian religion” in Virginia, they saw the Inquisition. What do we see in the actual establishment of the same religion by the Supreme Court of the United States? Again I read:— AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.10
“The one is the first step, the other is the last, in the career of intolerance.” AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.11
That is what they saw, the makers of this Republic, when an attempt was made to establish “the Christian religion” as the State religion. What does this people see in this decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which establishes “the Christian religion” as the national religion? Just as certainly as that back there was a signal of persecution, and persecution throughout the State, just so certain is this a signal of persecution, and persecution through all the nation. Just so certainly as that had in it the Inquisition, just so certain this has in it the same thing. AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.12
And just as certain as that edict of Constantine back there, had in it the papacy, just so certain this has in it all that the image of the Papacy is or will be. Controversies arose back there as to what was Christianity, and this brought the establishment of the Catholic Church and persecution of all kinds. Soon the next step was made, compelling them all to become Catholics—heretics to join the Catholic Church and hand over their property to the Catholic Church. AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.13
There arose still another difficulty and dispute as to what was the true Catholic doctrine, and this brought the Council of Nice, which established Trinitarianism as the true Catholic doctrine. This was soon followed by an emperor who, by a council, established Arianism as the true Catholic doctrine. This was soon followed by another emperor who, by a council, re-established Trinitarianism as the true Catholic doctrine. Thus one ruler and council decided one way, and another decided another way, as to what was the true Catholic religion. And thus it went on, controversy after controversy of all kinds, until the bishop of Rome was made the fountain of faith by earthly governments and human power, instead of the word of God through the Lord Jesus Christ, the power of God. Thus the mystery of iniquity hid and supplanted for ages the mystery of God. AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.14
Now, then, old controversies will be revived. Some of these controversies will rise right up again, as to what is the real true Christianity, Catholicism or Protestantism, Trinitarianism or Unitarianism, Calvinism or Arianism. These old controversies will be revived, which have apparently been hushed for a long time. These disputes will arise over hair-splitting theories that have no truth in them. They will dispute over these things. Atoms will be worlds, and worlds will be atoms; and these atoms that they will turn into worlds will be simply senseless disputes by which they can obtain control of the civil power, to force those who oppose them, and do not believe as they do, to act as they think or believe. “Old controversies will spring up,” and here are new controversies: revelations of false science, evolution, probation after death, etc. “New and old will commingle, and THIS WILL TAKE PALCE RIGHT EARLY.” Do you not believe it? Do you believe it? Is it not time to believe it, brethren? Well, then, I hope you will. AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.15
“The Sabbath a Memorial” The American Sentinel 7, 36, pp. 284, 285.
APROPOS of our notes in last week’s paper upon the nature and design of the Sabbath, are the following paragraphs from “The Abiding Sabbath,” published by the American Tract Society:— AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.1
Not to a single race, but to man; not to man alone, but to the whole creation; not to the created things alone, but to the Creator himself, came the benediction of the first Sabbath. Its significance extends beyond the narrow limits of Judaism, to all races, and perhaps to all worlds. It is a law spoken not simply through the lawgiver of a chosen people, but declared in the presence of a finished heaven and earth. The declaration in Genesis furnishes the best commentary on the saying of Jesus: “The Sabbath was made for man.” For man, universal humanity, it was given with its benediction. AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.2
The reason of the institution of the Sabbath is one which possesses an unchanging interest and importance to all mankind. The theme of the creation is not peculiar to Israel, nor is worship of the Creator confined to the children of Abraham. The primary article of every religious creed, and the foundation of all true religion, is faith in one God as the Maker of all things. Against atheism, which denies the existence of a personal God; against materialism, which denies that this visible universe has its roots in the unseen; and against secularism, which denies the need of worship, the Sabbath is therefore an eternal witness. It symbolically commemorates that creative power which spoke all things into being, the wisdom which ordered their adaptations and harmony, and the love which made, as well as pronounced, all “very good.” It is set as the perpetual guardian of man against that spiritual infirmity which has everywhere led him to a denial of the God who made him, or to the degradation of that God into a creature made with his own hands. AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.3
The words which we have italicized express truth which, if rightly understood and accepted in its fullness, would forever put an end to the “civil Sabbath” plea for Sunday laws. The Sabbath was primarily made for man, not that he might rest but that he might worship his Creator in the beauty of holiness. It was to be to man a memorial of God’s finished work, a monument erected at the end of each week to remind man of the time “when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,” because “God saw everything that he had made and, behold, it was very good.” Physical rest is an incident, not the object, of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. AMS September 15, 1892, page 284.4
“Back Page” The American Sentinel 7, 36, p. 288.
INSTEAD of entering a vigorous and manly protest against the persecution of Seventh-day Adventists, a Baptist paper in this city, enters upon a labored defense of Sunday laws, and incidentally remarks:— AMS September 15, 1892, page 288.1
If there are any whose consciences oblige them to rest from labor on some other day, they may be relieved from the hardship of a double Sabbath by being permitted to pursue their ordinary callings on Sunday—only so as not to disturb others in the enjoyment of their day of rest. AMS September 15, 1892, page 288.2
But what would constitute a disturbance of others? Some people are very much “disturbed” by the mere knowledge of that their neighbors rest on the seventh day while they work, and work on the first day while they rest. And in at least one State this annoyance has been held by the courts to amount to a public nuisance, and Christian men have been imprisoned as common criminals under this legal fiction. Such a permission as our Baptist contemporary proposes may mean something or nothing according to the whim of the courts. AMS September 15, 1892, page 288.3
BUT why should observers of the seventh day, or of any day other than Sunday be permitted to work on Sunday only provided they disturb no one any more than observers of Sunday should be permitted to work on Saturday only provided they disturb no one? Why should any more protection be thrown around the Sunday keeper than around the man who keeps another day? And if in order for one to rest all must rest at the same time, and if it is right and just to require the seventh day observer to rest on Sunday so that he shall not disturb the Sunday keeper, why should not the Sunday keeper be required to rest on Saturday so that he shall not disturb those who observe the seventh day? AMS September 15, 1892, page 288.4
BUT those who keep the seventh day ask no laws requiring others to keep it also. They are not disturbed because others are at work while they are resting. They simply ask to be let alone in the enjoyment of their natural right to work when they please and to rest when they feel tired or when their sense of duty to God moves them to rest. They ask no special legislation in their behalf, and they insist that there should be none in the interests of other religionists. AMS September 15, 1892, page 288.5