The American Sentinel 9
August 30, 1894
“Editorial” American Sentinel 9, 34, pp. 265, 266.
JOACHIM PECCI, as Leo XIII., is pope of Rome, and of all that the word Rome suggests. AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.1
THIS Joachim Pecci, as “Leo XIII., Pope,” has recently—June 21—addressed a communication “to the Princes and Peoples of the Universe.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.2
BUT why does this man Pecci presume to speak to the princes and peoples of the universe? What causes Joachim Pecci to think that the universe will listen or care to listen to what he has to say? AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.3
OH, he thinks that he is God on earth! He actually tells “the princes and peoples of the universe” that “We”—there seems to be more than one of him—“We hold the regency of God on earth.” And he tells it with an air that suggests that he really expects the universe to take seriously and believe the ridiculous statement. AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.4
NOW, what is a regency?—This is what it is: A regency is the office and administration of a regent; and a “regent is an administrator of a realm during the minority or incapacity of the king;” “one who rules or reigns, hence one invested with vicarious authority; one who governs a kingdom in the minority, absence, or disability, of the sovereign.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.5
NOW, if there are any princes or peoples in the universe who think that God is in his minority and is therefore too young, or that he is old enough but is afflicted with some disability and is consequently unable to conduct the affairs of the universe; or who think that he is all right himself, but has gone off somewhere outside of the universe; and if, in addition, those princes and peoples think that the Lord has left Joachim Pecci to run the universe during the period of his “minority, disability, or absence;” then of course it is to be expected that such princes or peoples will listen respectfully to what Mr. Pecci says when he addresses the princes and peoples of the universe. For, as a matter of course, if Mr. Joachim Pecci occupies the throne and conducts the affairs of the universe in the place of God, it follows plainly enough that when he speaks he speaks to the universe, and must be listened to accordingly. AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.6
BUT if any person believes that God is what he is, “the King Eternal, Immortal, Invisible, the Only Wise God,” then that person knows that it is impossible that such a thing could ever occur as his “minority, absence, or disability;” that therefore it is impossible that there ever could be any such thing as a “regency of God;” and that, consequently, the idea that Joachim Pecci or any other man should “hold the regency of God on earth,” or anywhere else, is too ridiculous for serious consideration if it were not supremely blasphemous. NO; Vincent Joachim Pecci, as “Leo XIII., Pope,” has no more right or authority to assert or claim to hold any “regency of God,” and from such position speak to the princes and peoples of the universe, than has any other Italian or any Hottentot. Yet there are so many princes and peoples who actually believe this ridiculous and blasphemous thing, and there are so many more who will admit tacitly or otherwise this ridiculous and blasphemous claim, and all together will therefore give such place to this claim and such force to these words, that for this reason and no other, it is well to set forth the principal points in this communication to “the universe.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.7
IN calling all the universe to “the unity of the Catholic faith,” he first designates those outside the pale of Christendom, next the Eastern churches, next the Slavonic race, and lastly the Protestants. He so longs for the Protestants in particular that he says, it is with “burning charity” that he turns toward these. Yes, there is no doubt of that. Those who have exercise this same “regency” before him have always had a burning charity for Protestants. John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, and thousands of other Protestants, were literally burned to ashes by it. We—and there are actually more than one of us—we desire to see no more manifestations of this “burning charity” anywhere in “the universe.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.8
THAT part that is the most important to the people of the United States—that part that will be the most taking to the professed Protestants in the United States, and that will be pushed to the front most here, is the passage in which he states the relations of the Church to the State. Here it is:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.9
It [the Church] is invested with power to make laws, and in the exercise of this power it is just that it should be free, even as this is just to all in any way depending on its authority. This liberty, however, need not arouse rivalries and antagonisms, for the Church aspires to no power and obeys no ambitions. What it desires solely is to preserve among men the exercise of virtue, and by this means assure their eternal salvation. And so it uses condescension and maternal processes. More than this, having regard to the requirements of all societies, it sometimes waives the exercise of its own rights, as has been shown abundantly by its conventions with different States. Nothing is farther from its thoughts than to trespass upon the rights of civil authority, which in return should respect the rights of the Church and beware of usurping any part of them.... God, Creator and Ruler of the world, of his high foresight, has given forth government of human societies, both civil and sacred authorities, wishing thereby, no doubt, to keep them distinct, but forbidding all rupture and conflict between them. This is not all. The Divine will and the general good of societies require that the civil power should be in harmony with the ecclesiastical power. AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.10
The State has its own rights and duties. The Church has hers. Between them there should be the bonds of strictest concord. So would surely be suppressed the unrest visible in the relations of Church and State—an unrest for many reasons perilous and grievous to all good people. So, without confusing or separating rights, all citizens would render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s. AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.11
That all sounds very well, and looks nice enough on paper, but like fly-paper, or the sugared pill, its sweetness is all on the surface and very thin at that. As thin as it is, however, it is altogether likely that it is thick enough to cause many professed Protestants to think that instead of a sugar pill it is a perfectly rounded bulb of solid sweetness, or instead of mere fly-paper and poisoned too, it is a whole hive of honey. Let us set alongside of this a passage on this point, written only three years ago by this same Mr. Pecci, writing then as now as “Leo XIII., Pope.” Here it is:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 265.12
It is the Church that proclaims from the gospel those teachings by which the conflict can be put an end to, or at least made far less bitter; the Church uses its efforts not only to enlighten the mind, but to direct by its precepts the life and conduct of men; ... and acts on the decided view that for these purposes recourse should be had in due measure and degree, to the help of the law and of State authority. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.1
This shows that “the bonds of strictest concord” that should be between the Church and the State are such bonds as shall bind and the State to do the bidding of the Church and be her obedient tool in helping the Church in “its efforts not only to enlighten the mind but to direct by its precepts the life and conduct of men.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.2
HE next condemns, without measure, “the Masonic sect.” We are not qualified to defend Masonry; but we know perfectly well that, admitting the truth of all that he says of Masonry, most, if not all, of it is true with far more force of the papacy. Here it is:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.3
It is a formidable power which has long oppressed all nations, and especially Catholic nations. Insolently proud of strength, resources, and successes, it spares no pains in these our troubled times to affirm and extend its dominion everywhere. From the dark caverns where it once plotted it has invaded our cities in broad daylight.... Most deplorable is it that wherever it enters it permeates all classes and all State institutions, as though it would constitute itself the sovereign arbitrator of all things. This we hold specially regrettable, for the perversity of its opinions and the iniquity of its designs are flagrant. Under cover of protecting the rights of men, and reforming society, it assails Christian institutions.... Marriage, the idea of the family, the education of youth, it strives to deprive of their Christian character, aiming also at the destruction of the popular respect for divine and human power. The cult it orders is the cult of nature. And it holds up the principles of nature as the one measure and the one rule of truth, honesty, and justice. Thus, as we see, man is driven to the ways and habits of an almost pagan life, if the abundance and refinement of seductions do not drive him still lower. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.4
He says that it is in that very city of Rome, “the capital of the Catholic world, that it has established headquarters;” and with vastly more force it is true of the papacy that in the city of Washington, “the capital of the modern world,” the church of Rome has established headquarters, that mean only mischief to the United States and to the world. His wish concerning Masonry is thus expressed:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.5
May the divine mercy upset these dark designs, and may Christian people understand that they must do away with this sect, and shake off, once for all, its shameful yoke. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.6
Such is his “burning charity” toward them and all the rest of us, just as it always has been. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.7
BEFORE closing he covertly pays tribute to his own authority as supreme, and warns all of what they may expect if they are not subject to it. This he puts thus:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.8
Reason yields to some the lawful right to command and enjoins on others to obey. In this obedience there is nothing hurtful to human dignity, since, speaking strictly, God is obeyed rather than man, and God reserves his most rigorous judgments for those who command unless they represent his authority in conformity with right and justice. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.9
And lastly, he does not miss the opportunity to set himself forth as the “mediator of peoples and governments” in these times of disorder and “prevailing unrest” in the present, and of “fear of the future.” And here are his words on that:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.10
Lastly, if we reflect upon what the Church can do as a mother and mediator of peoples and governments, helping all by its authority and counsel, we shall see how important it is that all nations should adopt the same feeling and profession in matters appertaining to the Christian faith. While our mind dwells on these thoughts and our heart prays for their realization, we see in the far distant future a new order of things unfolding itself. We know nothing sweeter than the contemplation of the great benefits which would result naturally from it.... The virtue of these benefits would not be limited to civilized nations. It would go far beyond, like a broad, fertilizing river.... Especially do we implore princes and rulers in the name of their political foresight and solicitude for the interests of their peoples, to weigh our designs equitably, and second them by their favor and authority. Were only a part of the fruits that we expect to ripen, the benefit would not be small amid the present rapid downfall of all things, and when to the prevailing unrest is joined fear of the future. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.11
Thus he invites princes and rulers to help forward his grand scheme of insinuating himself into the place of dictator of the nations, and obediently enforce his dictates upon the people of the world. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.12
THIS communication of “Leo XIII., Pope,” was taken up and discussed by the Tribune of this city in a “tone and manner” which the Catholic World is “much pleased to acknowledge” as “most respectful and amicable.” And this fact, the Tribune being Protestant, the Catholic World says “furnishes one of the best arguments which can be adduced in proof of the legitimacy and validity of the claim which the pope makes to be the vicegerent of God on earth and the divinely commissioned teacher of the Christian religion to all mankind.” The argument is, that if the Tribune and others who speak and act as it does on this subject were really Protestant, they would not show any respect or courtesy to such a document issued upon such claims as is this. But being Protestants and receiving it with its claims “with respect and courtesy,” this is declared to be “a powerful proof” that the claims that are made are legitimate and valid. We are not real certain but that there may be something in this view of the matter. For when anybody can treat with respect and courtesy a communication addressed as this one is, asserting the supremely ridiculous and blasphemous claims that this one does, then it would seem that such person really supposed that there might be something in the claim that was worthy of respect and courtesy. And when anybody, professing to be a Protestant, does such a thing, it would seem that it is not far from a tacit concession of some sort to the legitimacy and validity of the claim. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.13
IN this same number of the Catholic World a prominent Catholic describes Seventh-day Adventists as being of the last remnants of “consistent Protestantism.” We are glad that they recognize even a remnant of consistent Protestantism, and we are glad that they recognize us by name as being this remnant. It is therefore doubtless expected by them that we shall not receive this communication with any respect or courtesy. This is right. Their expectation is fulfilled so far. Therefore, in closing, we may be allowed to state that we have no more respect for Joachim Pecci as “Leo XIII., Pope,” addressing the princes and peoples of the universe, and notifying them that he holds “the regency of God on earth,” or addressing anybody else in any other way, than we have for any other man who should set forth the ridiculous and blasphemous claims that he does. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.14
“The Rights of Conscience” American Sentinel 9, 34, pp. 266, 267.
THE question of the rights of conscience has been brought very prominently before the country by the case of Private Charles O. Cedarquist, Company A, Second Infantry, the particulars of which case are thus given in the official report, copied in the Congressional Record of August 3, as follows:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.1
Charge.—“Disobedience of orders, in violation of the twenty-first article of war.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.2
Specification.—“That Private Charles O. Cedarquist, Company A, Second Infantry, having been ordered by his superior officer, Second Lieut. Edwin V. Bookmiller, Second Infantry, in the execution of his office, to take a rifle and proceed at once with his target practice, did refuse to obey, and did disobey said order. This at Bellevue Rifle Range, Bellevue, Nebr., June 17, 1894. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.3
Pleas.—“In bar of trial.” Not sustained by the court. The accused then pleaded “Not guilty.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.4
Findings.—“Guilty.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.5
Sentence.—“To be confined at hard labor under charge of the guard for the period of six months, and to forfeit to the United States $10 per month of his pay for the same period.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.6
The defense in this case was “limited to the contention that the order in respect of which disobedience was charged was an unlawful one in that, first, it enjoined a duty to be performed on Sunday in violation of orders and regulations limiting Sunday labor in the Army to the measure of strict necessity; and second, that the act required to be done would have been a violation of section 241 of the criminal code of Nebraska.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.7
The view taken of the matter by the court was— AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.8
That a commanding officer has a discretion under existing orders to require target practice by his command on Sunday in a case of necessity, is undoubted. The evidence in this case fails to fix upon the commanding officer of Bellevue Rifle Range, Nebraska, any abuse of discretion in the issue of the order complained of by the accused. The legality of that order and the obligation of the accused to obey it when duly transmitted to him cannot, in the opinion of the reviewing authority, be questioned. It was not for him to judge the necessity for the issue of the order. That discretion pertained to his commanding officer, and once exercised, whether erroneously or not, it was the duty of the accused to obey. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.9
The sentence of the court-martial was approved by Brig. Gen. Brooke, who, however, commuted it with this remark:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.10
The sentence is approved, but in view of the peculiar circumstances attending the commission of the offense, is mitigated to confinement at hard labor for two months at the station of his company. It is desired, however, that it shall be understood that, in view of the warning held out in this order, offenses of the character charged in this case will not in the future be regarded as fitting ones for the exercise of clemency. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.11
August 1, Mr. Cedarquist was released by order of the President, communicated in the following telegram:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.12
Adjutant-General’s Office, Washington,
August 1, 1894.
COMMANDING GENERAL, Department Platte, Omaha, Nebr.:—
The unexecuted portion of the sentence awarded Private Cedarquist, promulgated in the General Court-Martial Orders No. 45, current series, from your headquarters, is this day remitted by the President, and you will cause the man to be released at once. This action, however, is not in any manner to be regarded as a justification of the disobedience of orders on the part of the soldier. The officer who ordered target practice on Sunday, in violation of the order of President Lincoln, given in November, 1862, must be brought to trial for his disobedience of orders. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.13
By order of the Secretary of War.
GEO. D. RUGGLES, Adjutant-General.
Speaking in the House on the 2nd inst., to a resolution asking that the facts of case be laid before Congress, by the War Department, Mr. Grosvenor of Ohio, said:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.14
It appears by the record of the court-martial that on the day in question some officer of the United States Army ordered the company of troops to which Cedarquist belonged to go upon a rifle range somewhere in the neighborhood of Omaha and engage in the business of firing at target. It appears by the record that the soldier respectfully declined to go, stating at the time that it was improper and unlawful to make such a requirement, and that he was conscientiously opposed to doing that duty on the Sabbath day. AMS August 30, 1894, page 266.15
This shows that the real defense was the rights of conscience. Private Cedarquist (mistakenly, it is true) regards Sunday as the Sabbath, as he has a right to do; and having the courage of his convictions, he dared to obey God (as he supposed) rather than man. In so doing he stands vindicated and approved by the Government of the United States. But having established this precedent, will the Government consistently adhere to it? or will it respect only the Sunday conscience? In other words, was the real purpose of the President to vindicate the rights of conscience, as such and in any man, or to honor Sunday? Time will tell. AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.1
But be this as it may, the Cedarquist case opens up again the whole question of the rights of conscience, i.e., of how far conscientious convictions should be recognized and respected by the State. Can the plea that a man acted conscientiously ever be admitted as a justification for violation of law? AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.2
That this plea had weight in the Cedarquist case there can be no doubt. Had it been evident that this man had no regard for Sunday, that he had no conscience in the matter, but that his disobedience was willful insubordination, the case would have occasioned no remark and would have received no attention from the President. It is probably true that owing to the prevailing agitation of the Sunday question, this case has received more attention than it would have received had the issue been raised over any other matter, but that does not remove the fact that the President of the United States, and through him, the Government of the United States, has recognized the principle that even private soldiers have rights of conscience which ought to be respected. But, again, the query arises, where shall the line be drawn? It is clear (1) that government cannot become the judge of men’s consciences; and (2) that the plea of conscientious conviction cannot be accepted as a final and sufficient defense in all cases of violation of law. What rule, then, can be adopted which will preserve the authority of the State and yet not trench upon the rights of conscience? AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.3
The question thus raised is well answered by a clause in the Constitution of the State of Maryland: “No person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless under color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the State, ... or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights.” In this the line is drawn just where it should be, namely, at the equal rights of others. Under this provision the courts are not called upon to judge any man’s conscience, but only to judge whether or not his conscience leads him to infringe the equal rights of his fellow-men. That a man’s conscience is just what he says it is, no man has either right or occasion to deny. A man’s statement of his conscience is an end of controversy; but it does not follow that one has a right to do whatever his conscience tells him is right for him to do. There is a difference between conscience and the rights of conscience. No man, however conscientious, has any right to infringe the equal right of another; and at this point civil government has a right to take cognizance, not of any man’s conscience, but of the relation of the act to the rights of others. AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.4
The principle briefly stated is this: No man should be either required or forbidden to do any act contrary to conscience, however erroneous that conscience may be, unless the doing or forbearing to do that act trenches on the equal rights of others. This rule would (1) abrogate all civil laws requiring the observance of Sunday or of any other day; and (2) it would leave the courts free, not to judge men’s consciences, but to protect all men against wrong in the name of conscience. But this is only saying in other words that which we have said many times before, namely, that civil governments are instituted not to create or to “grant” rights, but to guarantee the free and untrammeled exercise of equal, natural, God-given, inalienable rights, and that of these the highest and most sacred is perfect freedom in matters of religious belief and practice. AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.5
The Government has acted upon this principle in the Cedarquist case; will it, we again ask, adhere to it consistently to the end? or will it regard conscience only in the Sunday-keeper, and ignore it in the Sabbath-keeper, as several of the States have done and are doing? We shall see. As for us, we expect nothing else than that the procedure in this case will be lifted far above all the rights of conscience and of everything else, and will be made to do service in the exaltation of Sunday and its exclusive support by the Government of the United States. AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.6
“Saint Worship” American Sentinel 9, 34, pp. 267.
SHOULD Paul come forth from his grave and visit the shrine of “Good St. Anne of Beaupré,” near the city of Quebec, Canada, his spirit would again be stirred within him as “he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.” He would not see the “temple of the great goddess Diana,” but the temple of the “valiant,” “invincible,” “blessed,” “holy,” “glorious St. Anne,” “Mother of the Queen of Angels,” “Mother of the Mother of God.” Instead of hearing Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen shouting for “the space of two hours,” “Great is Diana of the Ephesians,” he would find the people saying, day and night, “O good, O glorious, O pious, O merciful, O incomparable Mother Anne.” Instead of beholding the people prostrate before the shrine of the “goddess Diana,” he would see them kneeling before a gilded statute of “St. Anne” imploringly saying, “Grant, O Good St. Anne, that henceforth I may show myself more worthy of thee, so that, one day, I may be united to thee in heaven.” He would see the people crowding the marts of the church buying, not the “Holy Scriptures which,” as Paul wrote to Timothy, “are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus,” but memorial beads, chains, medals, rings, books, and images of “Good St. Anne” with which, through faith in St. Anne, they hope for protection from the ills of this life and “eternal glory through her intercession.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.1
All this idolatry is practiced by the church claiming to be Christian, to be “the only true church,” the “spouse of Christ,” the “holy Catholic Church.” When the servant of God raises his voice against such apostasies, as of old, its votaries are “full of wrath,” “the whole city is filled with confusion” and, as in the case of the Baptist mission at Quebec on August 7, the servant is stoned and the house of worship wrecked by a Roman Catholic mob. AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.2
All this idolatry is sanctioned and encouraged by Pope Leo XIII. in three briefs dated Jan. 28, 1886, Jan. 16, 1887, and May 5, 1887; and a “Pontifical Bull,” dated April 26, 1887. And now this man comes forth with an encyclical letter declaring “we hold the regency of God on earth,” and invites us to return to his idolatrous and blasphemous worship, to the veneration of “a venerable fragment of a finger bone of St. Anne,” and the worship of the “Glorious Mother of the Mother of God,” “the Grandmother of Jesus Christ.” He also sends a “Delegate Apostolic” and assures us that “what the church has done in the past for others she will do for the United States,” that is, what she has done for the Province of Quebec in teaching her poor, deluded, superstitious votaries to pray the following prayer, she promises to do for the people of the United States, and teach them to forsake the “one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ,” and divide that place with the woman “St. Anne,” whose “life,” “virtues,” and even “name” “has been left” by the inspired Word of God, “in complete oblivion.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.3
All the quotations regarding St. Anne, referred to in this article, are from a work entitled “Manual of Devotion to Good St. Anne,” published by General Printing Office, A. Coté & Co., Quebec, 1891, and is indorsed by Cardinal Taschereau, archbishop of Quebec. Read the following cardinal-indorsed prayer to “St. Anne:“— AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.4
PRAYER
Praise to St. Anne.
Hail, holy Anne, illustrious daughter of David and descended from a race of kings! The Eternal Father cherishes thee as the Mother of His beloved Daughter and the Grandmother of His divine Son. Hail, holy Anne, the Son of God, the eternal Word loveth thee, because thou didst give Him so pure, so good, so holy a Mother. Hail, holy Anne, worthy spouse of the virtuous Joachim! The Holy Ghost holdeth thee in great esteem, because thou didst give unto Him so worthy, so beautiful, so perfect a Spouse. Hail, holy Anne, Mother of Mary, the immaculate Virgin! The whole court of Heaven beholdeth thee with admiration, because thy happiness surpasseth that of all other mothers. Hail, holy Anne, joy of the Angels! All the blessed spirits hold thee in reverence because thou didst give birth to Mary, their august and gentle Queen. Hail, holy Anne, fruitful vine! All the Saints honor thee as the sacred tree whence sprang that lovely flower who is their delight in Heaven, and that worthy fruit which was their joy during their exile on earth. Hail, holy Anne, valiant woman, invincible fortress! The whole Church celebrates thy praises as the Mother of the spotless Virgin, who has always triumphed over every heresy. Hail, holy Anne, sure help of mankind! The just and the sinner alike invoke thee as their beneficient protectress and their powerful advocate before God. Hail, holy Anne, brilliant star that guideth the shipwrecked to port. The exile and the pilgrim look on thee as their stay and their charitable conductress. Hail, holy Anne, mirror of all virtue, in which all who are called to a higher life find a model of perfection, and all Christians find aid in the accomplishment of their duties. Hail, holy Anne, consoler of the unfortunate! In thee the widow finds support, the orphan a mother, the prisoner deliverance, the sick health, and the dying hope. Hail, holy Anne, help of all who implore thy assistance! Thy intercession is all-powerful with the Sacred Heart of Jesus; and Mary, thy immaculate Daughter, beareth thy petitions to the foot of the throne of our thrice-holy God. AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.5
Ejaculation.—Good St. Anne, obtain for me the grace of honoring God in his Saints. Pp. 103-5. AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.6
“Come unto me [not ‘grandmother’ Anne] all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” Matthew 11:28. AMS August 30, 1894, page 267.7
“Peter’s Sword” American Sentinel 9, 34, p. 271.
A CORRESPONDENT writes:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 271.1
The position taken by you, if I mistake not, is that it is wrong to use the sword of the State either to propagate or defend Christianity. How do you harmonize the instruction of Christ in Luke 22:36, with the above positions? AMS August 30, 1894, page 271.2
This scripture, taken with its contexts and the recorded events following, and the SENTINEL’S position, are in perfect harmony. To show the harmony, the text with the two following verses are quoted: AMS August 30, 1894, page 271.3
He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must be accomplished in me, and he was reckoned among the transgressors; for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold here, are two swords. And he said unto them, it is enough. AMS August 30, 1894, page 271.4
The swords were not wanted for defense, but for the fulfillment of prophecy,—“this that is written of me must be accomplished.” Two swords among eleven disciples are declared to be “enough;” another proof that they were not wanted for defense. Only one sword was used, hence one was “enough.” The sword was wanted to fulfill the prophecy,—“he was reckoned among the transgressors [Greek, anomos, lawless].” Peter in resisting the arrest of his Master and striking the servant, transgressed the civil law, and as Christ was his companion, “he was reckoned among the transgressors” or lawless ones. There was in the disciples, and especially in Peter, some of the transgressor’s spirit, manifested in the use of the sword in the garden (John 18:10), and on other occasions. Peter and John proposed the murder of the unbelieving Samaritans (Luke 9:54), which showed an utter misconception of the spirit of the gospel, and a willingness to transgress the laws of the State. AMS August 30, 1894, page 271.5
This instance of Peter’s use of the sword brought to the surface the transgressor’s spirit, and besides fulfilling prophecy, furnished an opportunity to rebuke the transgressors, and to forever forbid the use of carnal weapons in the defense of Christianity. This he did in healing the wounded ear (Luke 22:51), the Lord’s last miracle before his crucifixion, and in the words, “Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Had these words been obeyed by all of Christ’s professed followers from that day to this, it would have prevented the murder of millions of martyrs. AMS August 30, 1894, page 271.6
“Note” American Sentinel 9, 34, p. 271.
THE Monitor, a Roman Catholic paper published in San Francisco, has this to say about the Independent of this city:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 271.1
There is a paper in the East called the Independent. It is one of the ablest Protestant papers of its kind in the world. But it is broad-minded, generous, and truthful according to its light. While it is a thorough-going Protestant organ, yet it speaks of the pope’s encyclical in terms of deep sympathy and it pays tribute to his piety and sincerity. If all the others were like the Independent how soon the Catholics and Protestants would learn to like each other better as they knew each other more. AMS August 30, 1894, page 271.2
To get the full significance of this it is necessary to bear in mind to what the pope’s encyclical invites “the peoples of the world.” This the encyclical itself does not tell, but the article entitled “Saint Worship,” on another page of this paper reveals something of the nature of the feast which Rome has prepared for her guests. Truly, “if all the others were like the Independent how soon would the Catholics and Protestants learn to like each other better;” yea, how soon there would be no Protestants even in name, and all the world would be worshiping finger bones of the various satins, and other objects of popish superstition. AMS August 30, 1894, page 271.3
“Back Page” American Sentinel 9, 34, p. 272.
LET no reader of the AMERICAN SENTINEL, while enjoying the comforts of home and the free exercise of religious convictions, forget that a fellow-man is confined in a Tennessee jail for no other offense than following the dictates of his conscience in the matter of Sabbath observance. In this connection it might be well to also remember that in Maryland and Georgia several Sunday cases are now pending. It is almost a foregone conclusion that in at least two or three of these cases imprisonment will follow. Still other States have upon their statute books the necessary laws for inaugurating an era of persecution, and the National Reformers of the various schools and under various names, are fast manufacturing the public sentiment which will erelong set the machinery of the law in motion against those who honor the Bible Sabbath and disregard the papal Sunday. AMS August 30, 1894, page 272.1
CATHOLICS are persecuting Methodist missionaries in South America. The Methodists petitioned Archbishop Ireland to petition Satolli to petition the pope to become the champion of religious liberty in South America, where there is a chance to put his beautiful theories set forth in the United States, into actual practice. This was a perplexing matter. These sugar-coated religious liberty pills were for American Protestant palates and not for Spain or South America. Satolli replied as follows:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 272.2
DEAR SIR: Your letter of June 22 and document dated July 12 came duly to hand. The enclosed copy of the encyclical letter of our holy father is, I think, the most fitting reply I can make. AMS August 30, 1894, page 272.3
The encyclical addresses princes and peoples, calling them back into the Roman Catholic Church. The answer to the Methodists who ask for liberty in South America from papal persecution is in substance “come back into the Roman Catholic Church and you can have it.” Methodists, and all lovers of equal liberty, will spurn such an answer. But it is the same answer which persecuted Seventh-day Adventists are receiving in Maryland, and elsewhere, from Methodists. When the Seventh-day Adventist asks freedom from Methodist persecution the answer is, “Keep Sunday and you can have it.” That is, come back to the practice of our church’s view of the Sabbath and the persecution will cease. AMS August 30, 1894, page 272.4
SPEAKING recently in Allegheny, Pa., on “Law versus Lawlessness,” Rev. J. S. Hutson, pastor of the Nixon Street Baptist Church, said:— AMS August 30, 1894, page 272.5
The many labor troubles in this country are not conflicts between capital and labor, but conflicts between intelligent Christian citizenship and ignorance, vice and anarchy. In those days when they had no king in Israel every man did what was right in his own eyes. God was their king and the principle of subjection was religious, but the people generally were irreligious. The same thing has been true in all ages and is emphatically true to-day. The race of man, apart from Christ and Christianity, is unwilling to be governed by just and wise laws. Well, we know the result of a strike for a larger liberty and higher wages. The result has always been the same. It is strange that men should be so slow to learn and so ready to forget the meaning of those old-time phrases, “Thou Shalt” and “Thou Shalt Not.” AMS August 30, 1894, page 272.6
In olden times God himself was the lawgiver and king, and every man was personally responsible to him for his conduct. The purpose of Christ and Christianity is to bring man back into subjection and under the authority of God. AMS August 30, 1894, page 272.7
And the speaker might have added that it is the purpose of National Reformers and American Sabbath Unionists to accomplish this, not by the preaching of the gospel and by getting men converted, but by civil law; and that the authority of God to which they propose to bring men, is the authority of God as interpreted by these pseudo-reformers; and that under their proposed régime men are not to be personally responsible to God, but to civil rulers for the discharge of their duties to God. These so-called reformers want to share with Leo XIII. the “regency of God on earth.” Is Mr. Hutson one of them? or is he a true Baptist? AMS August 30, 1894, page 272.8