The American Sentinel 9
July 5, 1894
“Editorial” American Sentinel 9, 27, pp. 209-211.
THE Scripture was fulfilled; there had, as shown in these columns last week, come a falling away. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.1
BUT that there should come a falling away, was not all the prophecy—through that falling away there was to be revealed “that man of sin,” “the son of perdition,” “the mystery of iniquity,” “that wicked,” who would oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and who when he should appear, would continue even till that great and notable event—the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.2
REFERRING again to the scripture quoted last week from 2 Thessalonians 2:2, it is seen that self-exaltation is the spring of the development of this power. As that scripture expresses it, “He opposeth and exalteth himself.” Or, as another scripture gives it, “He shall magnify himself in his heart.” And another, “He magnified himself even to the Prince of the host”—the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet another, “He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes.” That is, he shall reign, or assert authority above, and in opposition to, the authority of Christ; or, as the thought is developed by Paul, this power would oppose and exalt itself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple—the place of worship—of God, showing himself that he is God. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.3
REFERRING also again to the instruction of Paul to the elders who met him at Miletus, there is seen a prophecy of this same spirit of self-exaltation,—a wish to gain disciples to themselves instead of to Christ. They would prefer themselves to Christ, thus at once putting themselves above him, in opposition to him. And this would be developed from among the bishops. “Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.4
THIS spirit was actively manifested in opposition to the apostle John while he was yet alive, for he says: “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes who loveth to have the preëminence among them, receiveth us not.” 3 John 9. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.5
According to the word of Christ, there is no such thing as preëminence, or mastership, or sovereignty of position, among men in the church. There was once an argument among his disciples as to who should be counted the greatest, and Jesus called them unto him, and said: “Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:42-45. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.6
AND in warning his disciples of all times against the practice of the scribes and Pharisees of that time, who were but the popes of their day, he says they “love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.... Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Matthew 23:6-12. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.7
IN the church each member has the same rights as any other member; but for the good of all and the mutual benefit of all concerned, as well as better to carry on His work in the world, the Lord has established His church, and with it a system of church order in which certain ones are chosen to exercise certain functions for the mutual benefit of all in the organization. These officers are chosen from among the membership by the voice of the membership. Of these officers there are two classes, and two only,—bishops and deacons. This is shown by Paul’s letter to the Philippians—“Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Chap. 1:1. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.8
BISHOPS are sometimes called elders; but the same office is always signified. When Paul gave directions to Titus in this matter, he said: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless.... For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” Titus 1:5-7. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.9
This is further shown in Acts 20, to which we have before referred; when Paul had called unto him to Miletus “the elders of the church” of Ephesus, among other things he said to them: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,“—episkopoi—bishops. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.10
PETER also writes to the same effect: “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” 1 Peter 5:1-3. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.11
This text not only shows that the terms “elder” and “bishop” refer to the same identical office, but it shows that Peter counted himself as one among them; and that not only by his precept but by his example he showed that in this office, although overseers they were not overrulers or lords. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.12
SUCH is the order in the Church of Christ, and as every Christian is God’s freeman and Christ’s servant, it follows, as has been well stated, that “monarchy in spiritual things does not harmonize with the spirit of Christianity.” 1 Yet this order was not suffered long to remain. A distinction was very soon asserted between the bishop and the elder; and the bishop assumed a precedence and an authority over the elder, who was now distinguished from the bishop by the title of “presbyter” only. This was easily and very naturally accomplished. AMS July 5, 1894, page 209.13
For instance, a church would be established in a certain city. Soon perhaps another church or churches would be established in that same city, or near to it in the country. These other churches would look naturally to the original church as to a mother, and the elders of the original church would naturally have a care for the others as they arose. It was only proper to show Christian respect and deference to these; but this respect and deference was soon demanded, and authority to require it was asserted by those who were the first bishops. AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.1
AGAIN: as churches multiplied and with them also elders multiplied, it was necessary, in carrying forward the work of the gospel, for the officers of the church often to have meetings for consultation. On these occasions it was but natural and proper for the seniors to preside; but instead of allowing this to remain still a matter of choice in the conducting of each successive meeting or assembly, it was claimed as a right that the one originally chosen should hold that position for life. AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.2
THUS was that distinction established between the elders, or presbyters, and the bishops. Those who usurped this permanent authority and office took to themselves exclusively the title of “bishop,” and all the others were still to retain the title of “presbyter.” The presbyters in turn assumed over the deacons a supremacy and authority which did not belong to them, and all together—bishops, presbyters, and deacons—held themselves to be superior orders in the church over the general membership, and assumed to themselves the title of “clergy,” while upon the general membership the term “laity” was conferred. AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.3
IN support of these three orders among the “clergy,” it was claimed that they came in proper succession from the high priests, the priests, and the Levites of the Levitical law. “Accordingly, the bishops considered themselves as invested with a rank and character similar to those of the high priest among the Jews, while the presbyters represented the priests, and the deacons the Levites.” 2 AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.4
THESE distinctions were established as early as the middle of the second century. This led to a further and most wicked invention. As they were now priests and Levites after the order of the priesthood of the former dispensation, it was necessary that they also should have a sacrifice to offer. Accordingly, the Lord’s supper was turned into “the unbloody sacrifice.” Thus arose that which is still in the Roman Catholic Church the daily “sacrifice” of the mass discussed in these columns three weeks ago. With this also came a splendor in dress, copied from that of the former real priesthood. AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.5
THE estimate in which the bishop was now held may be gathered from the following words of a document of the second century:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.6
It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord himself. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop has been honored of God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does (in reality) serve the devil. 3 AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.7
The next step was that certain bishops asserted authority over other bishops; and the plea upon which this was claimed as a right, was that the bishops of those churches which had been established by the apostles were of right to be considered as superior to all others. As Rome was the capital of the empire, and as the church there claimed direct descent not only from one but from two apostles, it soon came to pass that the Church of Rome claimed to be the source of true doctrine, and the bishop of that church to be supreme over all other bishops. In the latter part of the second century, during the episcopate of Eleutherius, A.D. 176-192, the absolute authority of the Church of Rome in matters of doctrine was plainly asserted in the following words:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.8
It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the church,—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vain-glory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings (we do this, I say); by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also (by pointing out) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the succession of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its preëminent authority.... Since, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the church; since the apostles, like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. 4 AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.9
When this unwarranted authority was asserted during the bishopric of Eleutherius, it is not at all strange that his immediate successor, Victor, A.D. 192 to 202, should attempt to carry into practice the authority thus claimed for him. The occasion of it was the question of the celebration of what is now Easter, as already related last week. This action of Victor is pronounced by Bower “the first essay of papal usurpation.” Thus early did Rome not only claim supremacy, but attempt to enforce her claim of supremacy, over all other churches. Such was the arrogance of the bishops of Rome at the beginning of the third century. AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.10
THE character of the bishopric, in A.D. 250, is clearly seen by the words of Cyprian:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.11
Not a few bishops who ought to furnish both exhortation and example to others, despising their divine charge, became agents in secular business, forsook their throne, deserted their people, wandered about over foreign provinces, hunted the markets for gainful merchandise, while brethren were starving in the church. They sought to possess money in hoards, they seized estates by crafty deceits, they increased their gains by multiplying usuries. 5 AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.12
As the bishopric became more exalted, and arrogated to itself more authority, the office became an object of unworthy ambition and unholy aspiration. Arrogance characterized those who were in power, and envy those who were not. And whenever a vacancy occurred, unseemly and wholly unchristian strife arose among rival presbyters for the vacant seat. “The deacons, beholding the presbyters thus deserting their functions, boldly invaded their rights and privileges; and the effects of a corrupt ambition were spread through every rank of the sacred order.” 6 AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.13
These rivalries caused divisions and discussions which gave opportunity for the further assertion of the dignity and authority of the bishopric. Cyprian, “the representative of the episcopal system” as Neander relates, declared that— AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.14
The church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the church is controlled by these same rulers.... Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the church, and the church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the church. 7 AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.15
He insisted that God made the bishops and the bishops made the deacons, and argued thus:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.16
But if we [bishops] may dare anything against God who makes bishops, deacons may also dare against us by whom they are made. 8 AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.17
Not long afterward, there arose another subject of controversy, which caused much contention with far-reaching consequences. As the bishops arrogated to themselves more and more authority, both in discipline and doctrine, “heretics” increased, Whosoever might disagree with the bishop, was at once branded as a heretic, and was cut off from his communion, as Diotrephes had counted as a heretic even the apostle John. Upon this point, Cyprian, the representative of the episcopal system, further declared:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.18
Neither have heresies arisen, nor have schisms originated, from any other source than from this, that God’s priest is not obeyed; nor do they consider that there is one person for the time priest in the church, and for the time judge in the stead of Christ; whom if, according to divine teaching, the whole fraternity should obey, no one would stir up anything against the college of priests; no one, after the divine judgment, after the suffrage of the people, after the consent of the co-bishops, would make himself a judge, not now of the bishop, but of God. No one would rend the church by a division of the unity of Christ. 9 AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.19
He therefore argued that if any person was outside of this system of episcopal unity, and was not obedient to the bishop, this was all the evidence necessary to demonstrate that he was a heretic. Consequently he declared that no one ought “even to be inquisitive as to what” any one “teaches, so long as he teaches out of the pale of unity.” In this way the truth itself could be made heresy. AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.20
Of the condition of the bishopric in 302, when the Diocletian persecution began, Eusebius says: “They were sunk in negligence and sloth, one envying and reviling another in different ways, and were almost on the point of taking up arms against each other, and were assailing each other with words as with darts and spears, prelates inveighing against prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity.” Also some who appeared to be pastors were inflamed against each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalry, hostility, and hatred to each other, only anxious to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves. AMS July 5, 1894, page 210.21
The scripture was fulfilled. There had come a falling away; there was a self-exaltation of the bishopric; and THE TIME WAS COME WHEN THE MAN OF SIN SHOULD BE REVEALED. AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.1
“Why Not?” American Sentinel 9, 27, p. 211.
THE Evangelist has the following paragraphs which are suggestive:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.1
The Independent notes that the Southern Assembly has given one of its committees a task of no small difficulty. It will grows out of the case of Miss Sadie Means. She was an active Christian, who, in seeking employment, finally found it in the telephone exchance, at Columbia, S.C., where she was obliged to work, or at least to be in attendance, for two or three hours on Sunday. The session of her church took notice of the matter, and finding her unwilling to give up the situation, she being obliged to earn her living, asked her to withdraw from the church. This she refused to do, and thereupon the session expelled her, by a majority vote. The case was taken to the Presbytery, and action of the church or session was sustained. Then she appealed to the Synod, where, after a protracted discussion, the decision was reversed. And now the church has just had the case before the Assembly, where the decision of the Synod was reaffirmed, thus fully restoring the young lady to her place in the church. Lest the cause of Sabbath observance should suffer by this constituted to report on the whole subject. Our contemporary says:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.2
The Committee on the Sabbath had reported a healthier sentiment on Sabbath observance, though there has little gain in the way of Sunday traveling or baseball. It had discussed what is necessary Sunday work, and had admitted that if hotels and street cars are a Sunday necessity, then a Christian may be employed by them and work on Sunday, taking remuneration therefor, and that some might argue that telephone and telegraph companies are equally a necessity. The committee struck out these references to certain possibly necessary work and appointed a committee of seven whose business it shall be to report to the next Assembly stating just exactly what work is necessary on the Sabbath and may be engaged in. Really this is a serious task, and is putting the Assembly into very difficult legislative work. We had supposed that about all that we can do it to lay down the general principle of Sabbath observance and leave the application of it to the individual conscience enlightened by the Spirit of God. It will be a very curious thing for the committee to report that the mail may or may not be carried on Sunday, that a milk cart may or may not travel, or that a church ember may telegraph the news of sickness or death, but cannot be a telegraph clerk. Shall we have, as the old Rabbinists gave us, a law how far one can walk to church on the Sabbath: or shall we be told that one may drive a span of horses on the Holy Day but not drive tandem? AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.3
The question suggested by this is, Why not? The Southern Presbyterian Church, in common with most other Protestant denominations, demands that the State shall do this very thing, namely, specify certain things that may not be done on Sunday; and shall the church be less explicit in the rules that are to govern its members than is the State with its citizens? Another incongruity is that in this matter the State is more strict than is the Presbyterian Church. The work that Miss Means does in Columbia on Sunday is under the law of South Carolina illegal, and she might be arrested and fined $1.00 and costs every time she is found engaging in it. It is safe to say too that if she were a Seventh-day Adventist she would be so arrested and fined, and every Presbyterian preacher in the State would protest loudly against any modification of the statute, denounce “Sabbath-breaking” as anarchy, and demand the enforcement of the law. Somehow or other there is still a good deal of inconsistency in the world notwithstanding the blazing light of the Nineteenth century. AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.4
The Evangelist’s note contains however much good sense. Such a code of rules as is contemplated would be entirely out of place in the church and is equally out of place in the State. But we doubt if either the Evangelist or the Southern Presbyterians see it in this light. AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.5
“Religious Persecution in Maryland” American Sentinel 9, 27, pp. 211, 212.
MAY 20, Elder S. B. Horton, a Seventh-day Adventist minister, at present located at Church Hill, Md., where he has been laboring for some months, and where a small church of that faith has been raised up, received the following notice, which we give verbatim et literatim:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.1
Church Hill, Md. AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.2
We the undersigned company of citizens of Co. Q. A. [meaning Queen Anne County] do hereby notifie you Mr. Horton wife and the young man that you have there as a spye to move out by the 21st of June 1894 (that is tomorrow) with your goods and chattels and not to return for we have put up with you as long we intend. As you are causing our heretofore law abideing citizens to be brought before the Justice of the peace for violation, to serve a term in Jail or the house of correction, whereas their families will have to suffer the wants of support. All due respect to you as man but none of your doctrine. We are a determined set. CITIZENS OF VACINITY. AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.3
(Cross-bones and bloodstains.
Writing to a brother minister concerning this notice, Elder Horton says:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.4
I have been preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have treated all men with consideration, and have been recognized as a citizen, having been called upon to pay town taxes, and have not interfered with the civil or religious rights of men. They charge me with stirring up the people and teaching them anarchy, when, as a matter of fact, I have endeavored only to hold forth the word of life which is the Holy Scriptures. For this they are seeking my destruction. AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.5
Some of our church company have been arrested for working on Sunday ostensibly, but in reality because they are keeping the Sabbath of Almighty God. It is well known that others work on Sunday without protest. But “Satan has come down with great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time,” and the poor misguided opponents of the truth are being deluded into fighting against God and his people. I well know that the words of the Saviour, “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you,” are just as true to-day as when spoken in person by the Lord. And I well know that our Master was accused of perverting the nation, stirring up and teaching the people contrary to the established religion. But the Lord has said, “Remember the word that I said unto you. The servant is not greater than his lord, If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you.... But all these things will they do for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.... These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” And so the Lord’s will be done, “for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” AMS July 5, 1894, page 211.6
At this writing, Elder Horton is still at Church Hill, and will doubtless remain there until it is thought best by the officers of the Atlantic Conference, under whose directions he is laboring, to go elsewhere. True, the people of Church Hill may do him violence. Such things have happened even in the nineteenth century, and in “free America,” but they can go only as far as God permits; and in this case as in all others, he will make the wrath of men to praise him, and the remainder of wrath he will restrain. Elder Horton’s confidence is not misplaced. The ill temper of the people of Church Hill, or we should say of a portion of the people of Church Hill, will only fall out to the furtherance of the gospel; others will have a curiosity to know what all the stir is about, and when they discover that Elder Horton teaches only Bible doctrine, being able to give a “Thus saith the Lord” for every position taken, and doctrine inculcated, some of them will be honest enough to obey the truth notwithstanding the wrath of men and devils. AMS July 5, 1894, page 212.1
There is nothing meaner than the spirit of persecution. These Church Hill people profess great indignation because Adventists do not obey the civil law in the matter of keeping Sunday, and then they unlawfully warn a man out of town and threaten him with violence if he refuses to go! What regard they must have for the law of the State, to be sure! AMS July 5, 1894, page 212.2
“Wants More of the Same Kind” American Sentinel 9, 27, pp. 212, 213.
SUNDAY, June 10, Senator Daniel J. Bradley, an Independent Democrat of Brooklyn, and a member of the legislative committee which is now investigating the police department of this city, took a little tour of investigation on his own account disguised as a countryman. Starting out from his cigar store in Brooklyn,—which was doing business as usual,—the senator directed his steps toward New York. This is his story as related in the Evening Sun: AMS July 5, 1894, page 212.1
I strolled aimlessly up the Bowery and at every five steps I saw barkeepers peering from their doors and beckoning to their old customers to come in. And the policemen were all there standing in front of saloons and looking as nonchalant as cigar store Indians, but never looking toward the doors from which men emerged wiping their mustaches and heaving sighs of relief. AMS July 5, 1894, page 212.2
When I reached Steve Brodie’s saloon, near Grand Street, I paused to look at the trophies of the bridge jumper, and it was then that the event of the day occurred. A well-dressed young man came out of the saloon, and, after sizing me up, inquired if I had the time. I pulled out my watch, which is a pretty good one, and told him the time. He then politely asked if I would have a drink. I winked at him and declined, and he turned and went sorrowfully up the street. AMS July 5, 1894, page 212.3
I suppose that he wanted to give me some knock-out drops and get my week’s share of the tobacco store receipts. But when he saw that wink he knew I was fly, and departed. AMS July 5, 1894, page 212.4
If it wasn’t for looking at the calendar nobody would know that it was Sunday on the Bowery. Clothing, hat, shoe, and furnishing stores were all open wide. AMS July 5, 1894, page 212.5
This, it must be remembered, was in a city and State which have a Sunday law. But the law is not enforced. As has been brought out in the investigations of the legislative committee of which Senator Bradley is a member, the police are bribed to wink at violations of the law. Those who pay are permitted to keep open; those who refuse or neglect to contribute regularly are arrested. Thus the law serves only to corrupt the police force. AMS July 5, 1894, page 212.6
But notwithstanding the use made of the Sunday law already on the statute books, Senator Bradley wants more of the same sort, and told a reporter that he intends to introduce a bill at the next session of the legislature to close everything on Sunday except restaurants and drug stores—and policemen’s extended palms; the latter close only on a bribe or on the collar of some poor victim who refuses to “divvy up.” AMS July 5, 1894, page 214.1
“‘Orthodoxly’ Insane” American Sentinel 9, 27, p. 213.
JUNE 18, a bright little school boy was murdered in this city by his father who had become insane by brooding over the death of his wife which had taken place some months previously. The insane father after sending three bullets into his child’s brain turned the weapon on himself. The father was much attached to the boy and the neighbors now recall the fact that he was often heard to remark, “When I go, Walter will go with me.” The boy, an exceptionally manly little fellow, was also much attached to his father. The secret of this sad affair is thus told by the World:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.1
Upon the table at which the distracted father was seated when the tragedy took place was an open hymn book. The covers had been bent so that it could not close, and inmates of the house now remember that throughout the early afternoon they heard the old man singing the verses of the hymn at which the book was opened. It was entitled “Beautiful Beckoning Hands,” and read as follows:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.2
Beckoning hands at the gateway to-night, AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.3
Faces a shining with radiant light, AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.4
Eyes looking down from your heavenly home, AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.5
Beautiful hands they are beckoning, come. AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.6
Beckoning hands of a mother, whose love AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.7
Sacrificed life its devotion to prove; AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.8
Hands of a mother, to memory dear, AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.9
Beckoning higher the waiting ones here. AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.10
This hymn has always been a favorite with Forshay, out by a singular coincidence he had on Sunday evening heard it sung for the first time by its author, Rev. C. C. Luther, who is temporarily filling the pulpit of Dr. Knapp at the Macdougal Street Baptist Church. It was after a visit to his wife’s grave at Greenwood Sunday afternoon, that Forshay had taken his youngest boy (he never went anywhere without him) to the church. On their return from church that evening he had taught the bright little boy the hymn, and together they had sung it over many times. AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.11
So it seems that this utterly unscriptural hymn was responsible in some degree at least for this terrible tragedy. The Bible declares, “The dead know not anything” (Ecclesiastes 9:5); and that “his sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not” (Job 14:21); that “his breath goeth forth, he returned to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish” (Psalm 146:4); but popular theology teaches, as does the hymn referred to, that the dead are conscious in heaven beckoning to their friends on the earth. If this were true, and they were so beckoning, and it were possible for those left behind to rejoin the departed by death, what would be more natural than just such an act as that committed by an “orthodoxly” insane father? AMS July 5, 1894, page 213.12
“An Iniquitous Proposition” American Sentinel 9, 27, p. 214.
THE latest proposed Sunday iniquity is “the introduction of literature on Sabbath observance into school books.” It is scarcely necessary to say that it was a committee of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod that proposed this. Commenting on this cheme an exchange well says:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 214.1
Talk of Church meddling with or control of secular affairs, but did any one in the United States ever before hear of a proposition so outrageously audacious and insolent as that revealed by the name of this Covenanter committee? What wonder that such Protestants as these are opposed to the division of the public school funds in the interest of the Catholics! They want it all to serve their own purposes; they want to make the common schools, supported by the taxation of all classes of the people, the propagating grounds of their own narrow and intolerant notions. Of a piece with this demand is that of several Protestant lay organizations that only Protestant teachers shall be employed in the State schools. A western newspaper, mouthpiece of one of these sectarian societies, in declaiming against all teachers who are not Protestants, indignantly asks why Catholics should be allowed to teach in Protestant schools. Protestant, mind you, not public or common schools. It has come to this, that the schools of the people are held by one division of the church to be its property now, while the other division holds that they should be its private possession as soon as possible; and both agree in demanding that religion of some kind shall be taught therein all the time. All this in plain denial of the letter and spirit of the Constitution and of the law of equal freedom. AMS July 5, 1894, page 214.2
Dr. H. H. George was chairman, and of his report the Christian Reformer says:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 214.3
Dr. H. H. George ... reported that he had corresponded with three leading school-book publishes; viz.: Ginn & Co., Boston; Potter & Co., Philadelphia; and the American Book Company, New York. The first mentioned thought it a grand idea, and would like to have the matter continued, and suggested that some sample manuscripts be prepared and submitted to the company. The second, or representative of the Pooter & Co. firm, could see no objection to it, and would be quite willing to consider it further. The American Book Company did not know that it would be expedient. They were aiming to meet any public demand in the line of school books, but had not known of any demand in the direction of Sabbath literature for such books. The committee deems it advisable to take further steps to prepare some discussion of the subject of the Sabbath in a graded series to suit the different school readers, and also a more analytic discussion of the subject for the text-book on physiology, and have them submitted to these and other book firms. AMS July 5, 1894, page 214.4
This is a monstrous proposition. Mr. George and his confreres would be horrified at the idea of turning the common schools over to the Catholics, even where papists are in the majority; but they deliberately plan to seize the schools in the interests of their Sunday propaganda. School books have quite enough of the errors of so-called orthodoxy in them now without making them vehicles for conveying into every home the claims of the false Sabbath. AMS July 5, 1894, page 214.5
“Back Page” American Sentinel 9, 27, p. 216.
THE News, of Paris, Tenn., objects to our criticism of the courts of that State for lending themselves to the persecution of Seventh-day Adventists. The News remarks:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.1
We do not believe the courts have convicted in this case upon the grounds of “religious persecution,” but as justice blindfolded and knowing no man, religion or creed. AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.2
It makes not a bit of difference what the News believes; its unbelief cannot change the facts. In deciding one of these Sunday cases in Tennessee, Judge Hammond said:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.3
Sectarian freedom of religious belief is guaranteed by the constitution [of Tennessee]; not in the sense argued here, that King, as a Seventh-day Adventist, or some other as a Jew, or yet another as a Seventh-day Baptist, might set at defiance the prejudices, if you please, of other sects having control of legislation in the matter of Sunday observances, but only in the sense that he should not himself be disturbed by the practices of his creed. AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.4
The courts cannot change that which has been done, however done, by the devil law in favor of the Sunday observers. The religion of Jesus Christ is so interwoven with the texture of our civilization and every one of its institutions, that it is impossible for any man or set of men to live among us and find exemption from its influences and restraints. Sunday observance is so essentially a part of that religion that it is impossible to rid our laws of it. AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.5
This grants the very thing that the News denies, namely, that Sunday laws are religious, and that they rest upon the religious prejudices of those having control of legislation. The News should remember that it is better to be right than to be popular; better to stand for principle than for dollars and cents. AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.6
Another point(?) made by the News is this:— AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.7
We are a firm believer in religious freedom and the rights of every man being untrammeled when it comes to divine worship, provided he does not practice and preach a religion that is detrimental to the public welfare. In this case we have no fight to make on the religious principles held by the believers of the Adventist Church, but as Sunday is regarded as the day of rest by all the States of the Union, and by the majority of the people, we do object to the practice of some in publicly going about their work on the day that is recognized and most generally held as being the Sabbath, or day of rest. AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.8
There are tens of thousands of just such firm believers in religious freedom. But of what value is it to any man to have the right to believe what he pleases if he is denied the right to practice as he believes? The Adventists believe that they ought not only to rest on the Sabbath day, but to habitually devote Sunday to secular pursuits. Of what avail is it for them to do the one if they neglect the other? Some people have a religion so flexible that it can be readily adapted to their convenient; but not so the Adventists; with them the observance of the Sabbath and the secularization of Sunday is a sacred duty. They regard the Sabbath as the memorial of God’s creative power, and as the pledge of his power to recreate, to make new, and to sanctify. On the other hand they regard the Sunday as a false Sabbath, a counterfeit of God’s holy day, the mark of badge of the “mystery of iniquity,” the “man of sin,” “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, showing himself that he is God.” But those who have little or no conscience themselves, but have been accustomed to follow the multitude, settle themselves down in a sort of satisfied self-righteousness and cannot understand why others should dare to displease the multitude—as though the multitude were God. Such forget, if they ever knew, that the Christian rule is: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.9
THIS note from the Christian Cynosure on the International Sunday-school Lesson for June 3, is a fair sample of the nonsense by which Sunday sacredness is sustained: AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.10
.1. The Passover instituted.—Exodus 12:4. “This shall be to you the beginning of months.” Their year had hitherto begun on the seventh of September. This change to the middle of March was to typify their new national life. The winter of their bondage was over; it was therefore fitting that they should date time from a fresh starting point. So the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, and all Christendom reckons time from what is called “the Christian era.” “They shall take to them every man a lamb.” This was an entirely new ordinance. AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.11
Does the writer of this note mean to imply that the Sabbath was changed at the exodus? or does he mean simply that the change of the Sabbath are parallel? If the latter, the folly of the proposition is but little less plainly marked than it would be in the former. A very essential element is lacking to make the cases at all parallel. In the case of the change of the beginning of the year the fact is plainly stated in the inspired record; while in the pretended change of the Sabbath the Scriptures are as silent as the grave, and do not so much as hint at any change by divine authority. AMS July 5, 1894, page 216.12