The American Sentinel 9
December 13, 1894
“Editorial” American Sentinel 9, 49, p. 385.
IT always costs something to consistently adhere to principle. AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.1
THE time-server and faint-hearted will always find times when it would seem to be easier, and even better, to compromise principle and lower the standard. AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.2
THIS is emphatically true in the advocacy of the separation of Church and State. The logic of one’s position often leads him beyond what he saw in the beginning, and the tendency is to falter. But to falter is to suffer defeat. AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.3
THE principles of religious liberty apply not only to the Christian, but to the unbeliever as well. If God ordained freedom to believe, he just as truly ordained freedom not to believe. If he reserved to himself judgment in spiritual things in heathen lands, he did the same in so-called Christian countries; for the words, “The powers that be are ordained of God,” were spoken when Rome ruled the world. Whatever legitimate authority any civil government has now, Rome had then. AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.4
BUT we find the disciples of Christ ignoring the laws of Rome that were designed to control men in matters of religious faith and practice. They fearlessly preached the gospel even when directly forbidden by the magistrates to do so. They were, therefore, violators of the civil law of a God-ordained government. AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.5
BUT neither Rome nor any other human civil government was ever ordained of God to control men in religious matters. The key to the whole apparent difficulty is found in the words of our Lord: “Render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” This forever separates between civil and spiritual things, and marks clearly the limits of civil authority. Within this sphere civil government is God-ordained; beyond it, any human government is only usurpation. Therefore the Christian who claims freedom of conscience for himself, must unhesitatingly award the same to every other man, however much his feelings may be hurt, or his religious prejudices outraged. AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.6
BUT it costs in more ways than one to adhere to principle in the matter of the separation of Church and State. Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists have put themselves on record as desiring to be consistent in the matter of paying taxes on their church property. And the Baptists were among the first to protect against the appropriation of public money for the support of sectarian Indian schools. It is true that in one instance in Indian territory Baptists did violate the principle, but they dissolved the iniquitous partnership of their own volition before public attention was called to the fact that it existed, and have since consistently held themselves aloof from such entanglements. Adventists have never transgressed in this matter. AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.7
IN the matter of Sunday laws, Baptists have not been consistent, but Adventists have. The latter have opposed such laws not only for themselves but for all men. They have refused to accept exemption clauses on the ground that they could not consent to the right of the State to require anybody to keep Sunday. Had they compromised in this matter they might have accomplished much in the modification of Sunday statutes, but would have done nothing for real soul-liberty. They might have kept out of prisons and chain-gangs but they could not have been the means of delivering souls from the bondage of Satan. They might even now go into partnership with civil governments, but in so doing they would deny their principles. And in the words of the historian of the Reformation: “It is impossible for a society to prosper, if it be unfaithful to the principles it lays down. Having abandoned what constitutes its life, it can find naught but death.” AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.8
DOUBTLESS, every temptation possible will be thrown in the way of consistent defenders of religious liberty to get them to prove untrue to their principles. Satan leaves no stone unturned to accomplish his purposes. He will frighten the timid, cajole whom he can, and retreat only when he must. It is a time for every lover of soul-liberty, every consistent defender of total separation of Church and State, to be alert. Let Seventh-day Adventists especially, who know what it is to suffer for the truth’s sake, set their faces like a flint against everything “tending toward a union of Church and State either in name or in fact.” It is a time to “be strong and very courageous.” AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.9
“‘Obey the Law Until Repealed’” American Sentinel 9, 49, pp. 385, 386.
LAMST week, under the above heading, it was shown that the advice given to Seventh-day Adventists—that they ought to obey Sunday laws until they could secure their repeal—by justices of the peace and judges of superior courts, as well as by those who are responsible for Sunday law prosecutions, was advice which, had it been followed in the past, would have stifled every great religious reform from the days of Daniel in Babylon to Roger Williams in America. It was shown that Daniel, the three Hebrews, the Lord Jesus, the apostles, the early Christians, Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome, Luther, the Protestant princes, Tyndale, Latimer, Ridley, Knox, Bunyan, Wesley and Roger Williams, all came in conflict with civil law in carrying forward the reforms of their day. It was also shown that they did not submit to the law until they could secure its repeal, but were true to conscience and suffered the consequences. It was also shown that the Protestant world to-day applauds the faithfulness of these violators of human law, and attributes to their faithfulness the liberty of conscience so long enjoyed. AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.1
But it is denied that there is any conscience involved in obeying a law enforcing idleness on Sunday, the first day of the week, and to this question we address ourselves in this article. However, this charge is not new. It has been made against every Reformer in every age. The conscientious scruples of the persecuted have always been denounced by the persecutor as fanatical stubbornness. The Roman rulers denounced the refusal of the early Christians to offer a few grains of incense on the altar of the gods, in order to save their lives, as unreasonable and unpardonable obstinacy. Cotton Mather and the Puritan defenders of the cruel imprisonment and barbarous whipping of Elder Holmes, the Baptist minister, in replying to the criticisms of their Puritan brethren in England, answered that Elder Holmes was not “compelled” by conscience to “come into this jurisdiction” and take upon him to baptize.” AMS December 13, 1894, page 385.2
But it is objected that all the reformers of old were forbidden to preach or practice their faith, while Seventh-day Adventists are not prohibited by Sunday laws from doing either. But they are so forbidden, and there is a principle of conscience involved. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.1
The following conversation between an editor of the SENTINEL and a Sunday law champion will aid in making this manifest:— AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.2
Ques.—When you labor on Saturday, the seventh day, don’t you, by that labor, preach to the world that you do not believe that Saturday, the seventh day, if the Sabbath? AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.3
Ans.—I do. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.4
Ques.—Ought not Seventh-day Adventist to have the right, then, in a free country, in a land which boasts of granting equal religious liberty to all men,—ought they not to have the right to labor on Sunday, the first day of the week, and by that labor preach to the world that Sunday, the first day of the week, is not the Sabbath? AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.5
Ans.—No. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.6
The same questions were asked the secretary of the Pennsylvania Sabbath (Sunday) Association, at its recent meeting in Williamsport. To the first question the secretary answered in the affirmative; but in the midst of the second question, he said, “Stop! I see the point you are making. No; Seventh-day Adventists do not have the right to work on the first day of the week, and teach thereby that it is not the Sabbath. We can’t permit you people to desecrate the Sabbath [Sunday], and set a bad example before our children. We are in the majority, and the minority must submit.” This is the situation frankly stated. “Actions speak louder than words,” and in obeying the command of God to rest the seventh day, and following their usual vocations on the “six working days” (which includes Sunday, the first day), Seventh-day Adventists are preaching that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and that the first day is not, so loudly that their enemies, who have no divine command for Sunday observance, undertake to stop their preaching by the State churchman’s old weapon, civil law. Yes, verily, this Sunday law crusade against Seventh-day Adventists is as certainly an attempt to stop their preaching as was the enforcement of the law which imprisoned John Bunyan an attempt to stop his preaching. And now, if there is any conscientious principle involved in a law forbidding preaching, then there is a conscientious principle involved in the law compelling Seventh-day Adventists to rest on the first day, a day which their enemies proclaim to be the Sabbath by resting upon it. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.7
To eliminate the conscientious element from the Sunday law dispute, an effort is made by a large class to show that Sunday laws are purely secular enactments, and have nothing to do with religion. No phase of the Sunday law controversy is so manifestly weak, erroneous and wicked, as this. Even Judge Hammond, of the United States Circuit Court, felt called upon, in the King case, though deciding against the defendant, to rebuke this plea by applying to it the term “disingenuous;” and we heartily agree with his honor in applying this term, which, being interpreted by Webster, means that the claim that Sunday laws are not religious laws, is “wanting in noble candor or frankness,” “uncandid,” “mean.” Nothing can be more clearly demonstrated than that Sunday laws are religious. Sunday laws originated in a union of Church and State; they are clothed in religious terms, and are perpetuated by the religious element. On this point Mr. Crafts, the Sunday law champion of the United States, says: “During nearly all our American history, the churches have influenced the States to make and improve Sabbath [Sunday] laws.” AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.8
The Sunday laws of the United States are descendants from the Sunday law of Charles II. of England. This fact is acknowledged by their advocates. And no one will deny that the Sunday law of Charles II. is religious, because it honestly states that its object is to secure the “keeping holy the Lord’s day” “and repairing to the church thereon,” and the exercise of the “duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately.” The Sunday law of Maryland, under which two Seventh-day Adventists are now imprisoned in the county jail at Centreville, is nearly as honest in avowing its religious character as is its ancestor the Sunday law of Charles II.; for the section under which they are imprisoned is entitled, “Sabbath-breaking,” and three times uses the religious term, “Lord’s day.” It also punishes persons who “profane the Lord’s day.” Webster defines “profane” as “to violate anything sacred.” Thus the Sunday law of Maryland, like its antecedent the law of Charles II., attempts to compel men to keep sacred or holy the Lord’s day on the first day of the week, when God commands men to keep holy the Lord’s day on the seventh day of the week. He says, “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” The seventh day is therefore the Lord’s day, and must be kept sacred on that day and not on “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.” AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.9
And now, we ask again, is there not a question of conscience involved, when the law attempts to make Seventh-day Adventists keep sacred the “Lord’s day” on a day which is not the Lord’s day, but one of what the Lord himself calls the “six working days.” AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.10
At this point an attempt is made by judges and prosecuting attorneys, and by Sunday-law apologists in general, to parry the force of this argument, by asserting that while the law does compel the Seventh-day Adventist to recognize the sacredness of the “Lord’s day commonly called Sunday,” it does not forbid him to hallow the day he regards as the Lord’s day, the seventh day, commonly called Saturday. And so long as he is left free to observe the day of his choice, there is no infringement upon his rights of conscience when he is compelled to observe the “Lord’s day” of the majority. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.11
The decree of Nebuchadnezzar, calling upon Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, to fall down and worship the golden image on the day of its dedication, did not prohibit these three Hebrews from worshiping Jehovah on the seventh day, the day dedicated to his worship, and yet they refused to bow down, and the “Judge of all the earth” sanctioned their refusal and rewarded their “anarchy” with a marvelous deliverance from the fiery furnace. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.12
But it is here objected that the cases are not parallel, because the golden image stood as the sign of an apostate and idolatrous worship, which was a rival of the worship of the true God, who had given explicit command against worshiping idols. This point will be treated in our next. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.13
“‘Compel Them to Respect Our Religious Prejudices’” American Sentinel 9, 49, pp. 386, 387.
REV. H. BEER, an Episcopal minister, of Redwood, Minn., makes a vigorous protest in the Redwood Gazette against Sunday work, in the following arrogant language:— AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.1
MR. EDITOR:—Will you kindly give me space in your valuable paper to call attention to the fact that the mechanics were working on the jail on Sunday last. If these people have no decency enough to have some regard for our religious sentiment, then it will become our duty to compel them to respect our religious prejudices. We have a right to be considered as well as they. We do not want any work done in our town on the Lord’s day, and since the jail is our own building, we consider we have something to say in the matter. We remind the offenders that there is a State law against work on the first day of the week, so if they have lost all respect for the law of God, we can compel them to pay respect to the law of the land; though we confess we should be very reluctant to do so. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.2
While we are writing, it may not be amiss to state, for the benefit of those who haul hay, wood, etc., on Sunday, and those who engage in ball play and such sports on that day, that they render themselves liable to a fine of from one to ten dollars. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.3
Of course the jail builders will have the usual clap-trap excuse, that they are trying to rush the building so as to have it inclosed [sic.] before winter, but we can put them on a better way of rushing it, than by working on Sunday. Let the contractor employ a half dozen of those unemployed men who are said to be looking for work, let him work them for all they are worth on the six days, and then there will be no need to break the law of God and man, and insult the religious sentiments of our community by desecrating the Lord’s day. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.4
It would be quite a joke on them if they rushed the building by working on Sunday, and got it finished just in time for their own accommodation. H. BEER. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.5
Besides calling attention to the over-bearing, dictatorial tone of this letter, we wish to ask the writer how men “break the law of God” by working on Sunday, the first day of the week? AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.6
The law of God says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work.” AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.7
Having shown that Mr. Beer is in conflict with the law of God, it is now proper to show that he is also in conflict with the creed of his own church. Here is the position of his church as printed in the catechism:— AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.8
Is there any command in the New Testament to change the day of weekly rest from Saturday to Sunday? AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.9
None. AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.10
What, then, does this universal custom in the church seem to show? AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.11
It shows that the change of day was one of those “things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (like infant baptism, confirmation, liturgic worship, etc.), concerning which Christ gave “commandment” to his apostles after he rose from the dead. Acts 1:2, 3. 1 AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.12
And here is another statement of the case from a standard Protestant Episcopal work which will show that labor on the first day of the week does not violate the law of God, but only the traditions of the church:— AMS December 13, 1894, page 386.13
There are some points of great difficulty respecting the fourth commandment. AMS December 13, 1894, page 387.1
In the first place we are commanded to keep holy the seventh day; but yet we do not think it necessary to keep the seventh day holy; for the seventh day is Saturday. It may be said that we keep the first day instead; but surely this is not the same thing; the first day cannot be the seventh day; and where are we told in Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day. There is another difficulty on this subject: We Christians, in considering each of the ten commandments, turn to what our Lord says in explanation of them; for in the sermon on the mount he says, that “not one jot or title” of the law shall fail; that he has come “not to destroy but to fulfill” the law; and then he shows in the instance of the sixth, seventh, and third commandments, how he will require them to be fulfilled by Christians, not in the letter only, but in the spirit, the heart, and thought.... AMS December 13, 1894, page 387.2
The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church, has enjoined it. 2 AMS December 13, 1894, page 387.3
And now we counsel Mr. Beer to read the fourth commandment and his church catechism before he writes another letter threatening to have men fined and imprisoned for breaking the law of God by working on Sunday. AMS December 13, 1894, page 387.4
“Back Page” American Sentinel 9, 49, p. 392.
THE two Seventh-day Adventists recently imprisoned in Centreville, Md., for Sunday work, have been released. R. R. Whaley was convicted on three charges, and committed to jail for thirty days on each charge. But it seems that the judge determined, before adjourning court, that he should be imprisoned for only thirty days. He was released on the 3rd inst. W. G. Curlett was convicted on two charges, and was likewise committed to jail for thirty days on each. But he, too, was released in thirty days. The judge was, it seems, more merciful than the law and the complaining witnesses. This action reflects credit on Judge Robinson. It must be exceedingly distasteful to such men to be compelled by an unjust law to lend themselves to what is evidently religious persecution. The remedy is to repeal the law which makes such things possible. AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.1
WE wish to call special attention to the article on our first page, entitled, “Obey the Law Until Repealed.” It answers clearly, and we trust, convincingly, a criticism often passed upon those who refuse obedience to Sunday laws. AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.2
It is strange that Christian men,—men with an open Bible in their hands,—cannot see the vital principle involved in this question of yielding obedience to laws requiring a measure of worship; for “obedience is the highest form of worship.” AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.3
It is said that Sunday laws are civil, not religious; and that they require a civil and not a religious service. But assertion is not proof. The fact is, and it has been admitted by a very large majority of courts and judges, that Sunday laws are religious in this that they rest upon the religious convictions and prejudices of the people, and are designed to guard a religious institution as such; and thus indirectly, at least, to guard religion itself. Indeed no other view was ever taken of such laws until under our scheme of complete separation of Church and State it became necessary to find a “civil” basis for such legislation. AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.4
Judge Allen, of New York, holds that the Sunday statute merely recognizes an attribute of holiness already bestowed by a higher law. His exact language is, “It does not detract from the moral or legal sanction of a law of the State, that it conforms to the law of God, as that law is recognized by the great majority of the people.” A Pennsylvania judge in like manner declares, “Sabbath-breaking is a violation of a divine as well as a human law.” In Arkansas, some Sunday card players were informed by the judge that the day “is set apart by divine appointment” “for other and better engagements.” While in Maryland, it has been plainly said, “Ours is a Christian community, and the day set apart as the day of rest is the day consecrated by the resurrection of our Saviour.” 1 AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.5
But it would not matter if every court in the world declared the legally enforced Sunday to be purely civil; the consistent Seventh-day Adventist still could not keep it. It is, the Bible teaches, a rival of God’s Sabbath, and as such the man who so believes, must refuse to show it any honor no matter what the consequences to himself may be; prison, the chain-gang, or even death, may await him, but he cannot falter; he must “obey God rather than men.” AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.6
A WELL-AUTHENTICATED story of the barbarous treatment of a Seventh-day Adventist colporter comes to us from Lewisville, the county seat of La Fayette County, Arkansas. AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.7
This colporter, who is employed by the Arkansas Tract Society of Seventh-day Adventists, with headquarters at Van Buren, went to Lewisville and began selling an Adventist book. He called on a Methodist minister, who said to him in substance: “That is the book, is it not, that the Arkansas Methodist condemned recently?” AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.8
Upon learning that it was the same book, an effort was made to have the colporter arrested, but the town clerk said he had a right to sell the book, which he continued to do. About 4 o’clock in the afternoon this Seventh-day Adventist colporter was met on the street by a number of men, headed by what proved to be the marshal of the town, who immediately ordered the colporter to leave the town. AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.9
The officer showed no badge and did not declare himself as an officer. Finally, he caught the poor Seventh-day Adventist by the shoulder, and, turning him around, ordered him to leave, and began to assist by kicking him! This was continued for some blocks, when, finally, he grew tired, and, drawing a revolver, he gave the abused colporter fifteen minutes to leave the place. AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.10
The Adventist went directly to his lodging-place and went to bed, for he had been badly used. About 8 P.M., the marshal came to the room where the victim of his abuse lay, accompanied by a man with a shot-gun. The colporter was again ordered to leave the place, but he refused to go, saying that he was a citizen of the State and had a perfectd right to remain there as long as he conducted himself properly. AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.11
The next day the affair was the talk of the town, and the valiant marshal, fearing that he would be prosecuted by the colporter, went to a justice of the peace and pleaded guilty to assault, and was fined. He was in no danger, however, so far as the poor Seventh-day Adventist was concerned, for the colporter did not intend to make complaint, preferring to leave his case in the hands of the Lord. AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.12
If this had happened to a Methodist colporter in a Roman Catholic country, it would have been religious persecution. But what is it since the victim is an Adventist, and the assailants so-called Protestants? AMS December 13, 1894, page 392.13