The American Sentinel 9

December 20, 1894

“Editorial” American Sentinel 9, 50, p. 393.

ATJ

THAT which distinguishes Christianity from every other religion is its spirituality. AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.1

WHEN Christianity ceases to be spiritual it ceases to be Christianity; for it has lost its distinguishing feature. AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.2

CHRISTIANITY is not of this world, even as its Author is not of this world; and being spiritual, and not of this world, it can be advanced only by means not of this world; hence the words of our Lord: “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” ¹ AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.3

THE sword stands not alone for the weapon bearing that name, but for civil power, for the authority of the State, and for all carnal force in spiritual things. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, hence its interests cannot be advanced by the use of carnal weapons. “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.” ² AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.4

THE AMERICAN SENTINEL has, from the first day of its publication until the present time, adhered consistently to this principle. It has insisted that as the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ is wholly spiritual, it not only cannot be enforced upon any person whatever, but that its promulgation cannot be either helped or hindered by worldly means; that as it cannot be promulgated by the sword, so it cannot be assisted by gifts from civil powers. AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.5

STATE support in any degree, whether in exemption from taxation or in direct gifts of land or money, means, at least, a measure of State control. But how can a spiritual church, teaching a spiritual truth, and dependent upon spiritual power, submit in any degree to be controlled by any power except her divine and spiritual Lord? AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.6

BUT, as before stated, State aid means State control, either in whole or in part. A State grants a charter to a railroad, giving it the right of eminent domain; and in return the railroad must submit to have its business regulated by the State, to an extent and in a manner beyond the control exercised over other kinds of business. AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.7

A NUMBER of citizens contribute freely in work and money to build a grist mill. The mill is built as a custom mill. Later, the owners desire to run it as a merchant mill; but they must first repay every penny donated to assist in building it, because neighborhood aid means a measure of neighborhood control. AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.8

THIS principle is clearly stated by Dr. A. P. M’Diarmid, pastor of the Tabernacle Baptist Church, Brooklyn, in his pamphlet, “Should Church Property Be Taxed?” He says: “Accepting the support of the State, we must logically accept the authority of the State over the Church. It is, practically, the argument by which the State-church has always been defended.” This is sound; State aid necessarily involves State control, either directly, in legal enactments binding the Church, or in undue influence exerted by the State, and which the Church dare not resist for fear of forfeiting the favor of the State. AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.9

LOBBYING, wire-pulling, and compromise are inseparably connected with the acceptance of public lands or public funds. If the civil government, by whatever name it may be called, or whatever may be its form, gives anything to a church, it is in expectation of receiving a return in influence. The church is then expected to support the government, to indorse its laws; in short, to give its moral support in return for the bounty granted by the government. But this no church can engage to do and remain loyal to God. It is sometimes necessary for a church to oppose the policy of a government and disobey its laws, even as did the apostles, and, like them, return to civil rulers this answer: “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Therefore, as the chaste woman will not accept presents from a man not her husband, and to whom she is not betrothed, so no pure church should accept bounties from any civil government under heaven. AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.10

“‘Obey the Law Until Repealed’” American Sentinel 9, 50, pp. 393-395.

ATJ

THE Lord says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” ¹ Again, speaking of the seventh day, the Lord calls it “my holy day.” ² Again the Lord says of the seventh day, “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” ³ AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.1

Besides declaring that “the seventh day is the Sabbath,” the Lord of the Sabbath says, “Six days shalt thou labor,” ⁴ and calls these six days, “The six working days.” ⁵ AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.2

Seventh-day Adventists believe the Lord. More, they obey him. They keep holy the seventh day, and commencing on the first day, they work on “the six working days.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.3

While thus obeying the Lord, the government, instigated by representatives of opposing religions, lays its heavy hand on them and says, You are guilty of “Sabbath-breaking,” ⁶ you “profane the Lord’s day” ⁷ contrary to law. Seventh-day Adventists protest that they have not profaned the Lord’s day, and read the words of the Lord, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” But the law of Tennessee ⁸ replies, “The Sabbath day” is “Sunday.” ⁹ Montana, ¹⁰ Vermont, ¹¹ New Hampshire, ¹² and Pennsylvania ¹³ agree with Tennessee, and say, “The Lord’s day” is “the first day of the week.” Arkansas ¹⁴ and New Jersey ¹⁵ join the controversy and remark, “The Christian Sabbath” is “the first day of the week.” Colorado ¹⁶ puts it a little differently and asserts that “the Sabbath or Lord’s day” is “the first day of the week.” Florida, ¹⁷ Illinois, ¹⁸ Indiana, ¹⁹ Iowa, ²⁰ Kansas, ²¹ and Wisconsin ²² in ..., “The Sabbath day” is “the first day of the week.” Maine ²³ is very definite, and says, “The Lord’s day” is “the first day of the week,” and “includes the time between twelve o’clock on Saturday night and twelve o’clock on Sunday night.” Massachusetts ²⁴ does not say which day is the “Lord’s day,” but cheerily infers that it ... “the seventh day,” and Virginia, ²⁵ and West Virginia ²⁶ in like manner infer that “the Sabbath day” is not “the seventh day.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 393.4

Minnesota ²⁷ in explaining her position, ... “The first day of the week being by general consent set apart for rest and religious uses, the law prohibits the living on that day of certain oaths.... A violation of the foregoing prohibitions is Sabbath-breaking.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.1

Missouri ²⁸ agrees with Minnesota, and states that “no labor or perform any work;” “on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” is “Sabbath-breaking.” Nebraska ²⁹ agrees with Missouri. Georgia, ³⁰ Mississippi, ³¹ and South Carolina, ³² all agree that “the Sabbath day” is “Sunday,” and Tennessee adds that the seventh day is one of the “week days.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.2

Vermont ³³ asserts that “any persons who, between twelve o’clock Saturday night and sunset on the following Sunday, exercises any business or employment” is guilty of “Sabbath-breaking.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.3

North Dakota and South Dakota ³⁴ are still more emphatic, and say, “Doing servile labor on the first day of the week” is “Sabbath-breaking,” and one of the “crimes against religion.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.4

Seventh-day Adventists again look at their Bibles and notwithstanding all this testimony from human law, the law of God still reads, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.5

They appeal to the United States Circuit Court, but that court says it cannot interfere. And before they can get their case before the Supreme Court of the United States this tribunal of last resort decides unanimously that “this is a Christian nation,” and as one proof cites the very “Sabbath laws” ³⁵ which oppress them and which declare that the first day of the week is the Sabbath day or the Lord’s day. AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.6

Closely following this decision the Congress of the United States, in violation of the Constitution, takes sides with the States and joins in declaring that “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday” ³⁶ is the Sabbath; a thing it had for a hundred years refused to do and which the United States Senate said if done would constitute “a legal decision of a religious controversy” ³⁷ and lay the foundation for “that usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country which has been the desolating scourge to the fairest portions of the Old World.” ³⁸ AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.7

When in 1829 the Senate of the United States was petitioned to enact a law enforcing the observance of the “Sabbath or first day of the week,” the Senate answered by committee report: “With these different religious views [“the seventh day is the Sabbath” and “the first day is the Sabbath”], the committee are of the opinion that Congress cannot interfere. It is not the legitimate province of the legislature to determine what religion is true and what is false.” Notwithstanding these solemn warnings the Congress of the United States in 1892 took sides with the several States and with the Supreme Court in deciding that the claim that the first day of the week is the Sabbath is true and that the claim that the seventh day is the Sabbath is false. AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.8

After all this has been done the demand is made that Seventh-day Adventists, by the act of resting on the first day of the week, shall assent to, and thereby teach, the doctrine that the “first day is the Sabbath.” But with the States of the Union, with the Supreme Court of the United States, and with the Congress of the United States, declaring that the first day is the Sabbath, Seventh-day Adventists find that the commandment still reads, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.9

For their faithfulness to the law of God and their refusal to bow to the image—a counterfeit—of that law which men have set up, they are fined and imprisoned, and when let go are admonished in future to obey the laws of the State which declare that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. Seventh-day Adventists answer, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” ³⁹ When let go, they continue to labor on the first day of the week in harmony with the law of God and in violation of the law of the State. AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.10

They are again arrested, fined, and imprisoned, and told by judges that the ought as good citizens to obey the laws of the State until they could secure their repeal. Prosecuting attorneys, prosecuting witnesses, the National Reform Association, the American Sabbath Union, State Sabbath Associations, popular churches, law and order leagues, and young people’s societies assume an air of patriotic loyalty to law, and in a chorus respond, Amen. But the Seventh-day Adventists answer, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” ⁴⁰ And then the judge, whose province it is to judge according to the civil laws, leaves this judgment-seat and climbs to the throne of the Infinite, and usurps the “divine prerogative,” and judges the consciences of the accused, and tells them that there is no element of conscience involved in the question, that the law does not forbid them to keep the seventh day, but only requires them to observe the Lord’s day on the first day of the week, and that there is no element of conscience involved in refraining from labor on the first day of the week, and to contend that there is but a manifestation of fanatical stubbornness. AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.11

The charge of fanaticism and stubbornness is as old as religious persecution, and has been met by the reformers of all ages. There is a conscientious principle involved, and Seventh-day Adventists will continue to maintain their loyalty to God and give a reason for the hope that is within then with meekness and fear. AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.12

The observance of the Sabbath of the Lord, or the Lord’s day, is an act of religion, an act of worship. The Sabbath, or Lord’s day, is commanded by the law of God which Paul declares is “spiritual” and “holy.” When the State therefore attempts to compel men to observe the Sabbath, or Lord’s day, it undertakes to enforce obedience in spiritual matters. And as obedience in spiritual matters is worship, so to obey the Sabbath laws of the State is to worship the State. And the Seventh-day Adventist says to the State, in the words of Martin Luther to the Emperor Charles V.:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.13

God, who is the searcher of hearts, is my witness, that I am read most earnestly to obey your majesty, in honor or in dishonor, in life or in death, and with no exception save the Word of God, by which man lives. In all the affairs of this present life, my fidelity shall be unshaken, for here to lose or gain is of no consequence to salvation. But when eternal interests are concerned, God wills not that man shall submit unto man. For such submission in spiritual matters is real worship, and ought to be rendered solely to the Creator. ⁴¹ AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.14

But what has the Government done in presuming to decide this religious controversy regarding the Sabbath and demanding obedience to its decision under penalty of fine and imprisonment? It has done just what the Baptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers, with Jefferson and Madison, said in their memorial to the Virginia legislature in 1776, denying the rightfulness of “the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects that profess the Christian faith,“—it has erected “a claim to infallibility” which is papal in principle and can but “lead us back to the church of Rome.” ⁴² In deciding that the first day is the Sabbath, in favor of certain sects that profess the Christian religion, and against the position of another Christian body which holds that “the seventh day is the Sabbath,” it violates the great Protestant principle after which it was imaged by the hands of its founders, and is moulded in the image of the papacy which has always claimed the right to infallibly decide questions of faith and to enforce the decision by fines and imprisonment. AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.15

It is plain, therefore, that in attempting to compel Seventh-day Adventists to obey the government in the spiritual matter of Sabbath-keeping, which obedience is real worship, the attempt is made to compel Seventh-day Adventists to worship the image of the papacy. AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.16

But this is not all. The first day rival of the Sabbath of the Lord was not originated by the Government of the United States. As a so-called Christian institution the first-day Sabbath originated with the papacy, that power which Daniel said would “think to change times and laws,” ⁴³ and which Paul prophesied would “exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped.” ⁴⁴ The papacy claims to be able to change the time of the Sabbath of the Most High in the face of the plain command of God. AMS December 20, 1894, page 394.17

On this point Cardinal Gibbons says:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.1

Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you ma read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify. ⁴⁵ AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.2

A standard catechism of the Roman Catholic Church speaks thus plainly on the same subject:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.3

Question.—Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept? AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.4

Answer.—Had she not such power she could not have ... substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scripture authority. ⁴⁶ AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.5

Thus the church of Rome confesses that “the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week,” is the Sabbath, instead of the “seventh day,” originated with her. This is denied by some professed Protestants on the ground that Sunday was kept before the Roman Catholic Church was recognized as a distinct body. This does not alter the matter. “The mystery of iniquity,” which now assumes the name Roman Catholic Church, was at work in Paul’s day. AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.6

But it devolves on those who keep the first day as the Sabbath and who deny the claim of Rome as the author of Sunday observance, and who accept the Bible as infallible rule of faith, to find where the great Law-giver has abrogated the command to observe “the seventh day” and enacted a law enjoining the observance of the “first day.” But this they confess they cannot do. Here are some of their confessions. AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.7

The Protestant Episcopal Church says: AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.8

Is there any command in the New Testament to change the day of weekly rest from Saturday to Sunday? AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.9

None. ⁴⁷ AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.10

The Church of England says:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.11

There are some points of great difficulty respecting the fourth commandment.... AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.12

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 Scripture 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.... AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.13

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. ⁴⁸ AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.14

The Methodist Episcopal Church publishes this:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.15

This seventh-day Sabbath was strictly observed by Christ and his apostles previous to his crucifixion. Mark 6:2; Luke 4:16, 31; 13:10; Acts 1:12-14; 3:14, 42, 44; 17:2; 18:4... AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.16

Jesus, after his resurrection, changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.... AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.17

When Jesus gave instruction for this change we are not told, but very likely during the time when he spake to his apostles of the things pertaining to his kingdom. ⁴⁹ AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.18

Says Rev. Edward T. Hixcox, a Baptist minister, author of the “Baptist Manual,” in a recent address before a Baptist ministers meeting of New York City:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.19

There was and is a commandment to “keep holy the Sabbath day,” but that Sabbath-day was not Sunday. It will however be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament,—absolutely not. There is no Scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week. I wish to say that this Sabbath question, in this aspect of it, is in my judgment the gravest and most perplexing question connected with Christian institutions which at present claims attention from Christian people. AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.20

Space will not admit the introduction of a great mass of similar confessions from other professedly Protestant denominations. AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.21

And now, we ask, when a civil government transforms itself into an image of the papacy and commands men to obey its decrees in the spiritual matter of Sabbath-keeping, and attempts to compel men to observe the first day as the Sabbath, when God says, “the seventh day is the Sabbath,” and since the first day Sabbath is the Roman Catholic Sabbath, and since “such submission in spiritual things is real worship,” it follows that to obey such laws is to worship, not only the image of the papacy but the papacy itself, and this is just the view which Roman Catholics take of the question in the following quotation:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.22

Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage [worship] they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Roman Catholic] church. ⁵⁰ AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.23

But this is not all. Not only does the papacy claim the power to change the law of God; not only does it claim to have changed the Sabbath, the seventh day, to Sunday, the first day, but it puts forth this very change as a mark or sign of its power to command the obedience of men under penalty of sin. Here is the claim:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.24

Question.—How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days? AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.25

Answer.—By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church. AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.26

Question.—How prove you that? AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.27

Answer.—Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin. ⁵¹ AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.28

And now from all this it is clearly seen that when Seventh-day Adventists refuse to obey laws made to compel the observance of the first day as the Sabbath of the Lord, they refuse to obey or worship a power which by the very act of deciding which day is the Sabbath, and enforcing that decision upon them, transforms itself into an image of the papacy. They refuse also to obey or worship the papacy itself, which originated the Sunday rival of the Sabbath of the Lord. And, lastly, they refuse to receive, either with a willing mind or under the hand of compulsion, the Sunday institution which the papacy itself claims as the mark of its power. AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.29

And in thus refusing they are acting in harmony with the warning found in “The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him to show unto his servants,” which says: “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation: and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 14:9-12. AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.30

This is the reason why Seventh-day Adventists cannot obey Sunday laws until they are repealed. To the statement that this position will bring them in conflict with every civilized government in the world, they answer that the Lord has predicted that the “kings of the earth and their armies” would rally to the support of this papal apostasy against those “who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” would rally to the support of this papal apostasy against those “who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” But blessed be his name, the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” ⁵² marshals the “armies in heaven” for the defense of the faithful few who keep the commandments of God, and joins in battle with “the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies,” ⁵³ and the “beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshiped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.” ⁵⁴ “And them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.” ⁵⁵ AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.31

And the great controversy between truth and error, the battle of the ages, is ended. AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.32

“Still Troubled by Adventists” American Sentinel 9, 50, pp. 395, 396.

ATJ

“FATHER” WALTER ELLIOTT, a Catholic priest of the order of the Paulist Fathers, in writing from Michigan, some months since, said of Seventh-day Adventists: “The sect is the most ... of Catholicity in these parts.” Mr. Ellison is still proscribed by the Adventists, who attend his meetings in Ohio, as they did in Michigan, and fill his question box with queries that seem to almost upset the equanimity of the doughty priest. AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.1

In the Catholic World for December, Priest Elliott says:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.2

In the question box our only abundant matter was furnished by the Seventh-day Adventists, for their propaganda had won over a little band of fanatics. They seemed to be surprised that I took the Protestant side of the controversy on the question of Sunday observance, and then they deluged us with angry interrogatories. I maintained that, first, a “Bible Christian,” one who holds to the private interpretation of the Scriptures as the only rule of faith, can and must believe that the entire ceremonial law of the Jews is totally abolished by Christ, including all liturgical observances whatever, no less the Jewish Sabbath than the Jewish sacrifice. Second, I maintained with the catechism of the Council of Trent that there is evidence is the New Testament of the selection by the apostles of the Sunday as a substitute for the Mosaic Sabbath, and if the texts are not conclusive of an obligation, they are still plainly indicative of the apostolic origin of the new custom. That gave me ample opportunity to demonstrate the need of church authority in such matters, but the two points above stated compel us, I am sure, to take sides against the Adventists. I dread their fanaticism. If they ever grow strong, the Sunday is gone from public courts and legislatures, from the industrial and domestic life of the people—an incalculable loss to religion. These new sectarians are making converts in many places, full of deadly hatred of the Catholic Church, some of whose opponents have, unhappily, supplied them with their most effective weapons to unsettle Protestant belief and practice on the question of Sunday observance. AMS December 20, 1894, page 395.3

It will be noted that “Father” Elliott acknowledges that he took “the Protestant side of the controversy on the question of Sunday observance.” It is clear therefore that he did not take the Roman Catholic position. In other words, pressed by the questions of Seventh-day Adventists he abandoned the position of his church, and took a position that the Catholic Mirror, the organ of the Cardinal-Archbishop of Baltimore, branded only a few months since as “groundless, self-contradictory and suicidal.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.1

But it is not strange that a Romish priest takes a “Protestant position” when occasion demands; for, “The end justifies the means” is a time honored motto with the papacy. But it is too late in the history of the world for the priests of Rome to deny the position of their church upon the change of the Sabbath. “Father” Elliott only stultifies himself and his cause when he abandons the claim that the Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath, and tries to make it appear that it was done by the apostles. The catechisms and publications of the Catholic Church are against him. Every Seventh-day Adventist in the United States ought to have several copies of the Catholic Mirror pamphlet, ¹ “The Christian Sabbath,” to use against this virulent priest wherever he goes. Loan them to your neighbors, and ask them to read them; and when Mr. Elliott denies the claim of his own church as put forth by the official organ of the American Cardinal-Archbishop, the people will readily see in his devious course the trail of the Romish serpent, and will judge him by the rule, Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.2

“‘Is It Religious Persecution?’” American Sentinel 9, 50, pp. 396, 397.

ATJ

THIS question was raised by the New York Independent, in its issue of November 29, in an article devoted to the discussion of the recent imprisonment of two Seventh-day Adventists in Centreville, Md., for “doing bodily labor on the Lord’s day.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.1

The Independent has several times in the past spoken in no uncertain terms concerning the imprisonment of Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists, for failure to observe Sunday in obedience to civil laws, and the opening paragraph of the present article has some of the old-time ring. Our contemporary says:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.2

In the progress of the spirit of independence and liberty persecution has become a hateful thing, an intolerance which the right-minded refuse to tolerate. It is with a feeling of humiliation, if not with positive horror, that we look back to the time in our own history, not so far away as we could wish, when the members of certain sects were proscribed and persecuted; when imprisonment and fines were meted out to those who did not fall in with prevalent religious practices. We are not sure that we have not still among us a vestige of that species of persecution by which the civil authorities used to punish men and women for their neglect or refusal to comply with religious observances enforced by law. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.3

This is good. We certainly still have among us very considerable “vestige of that species of persecution by which the civil authorities used to punish men and women for their neglect or refusal to comply with religious observances enforced by law.” But the Independent grows timid as it progresses, and after giving expression to the sentiments we have quoted, begins to hedge in this fashion:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.4

Strictly speaking, the courts do not enforce this civil law because of the divine sanction or because of the religious observances of the day. The law is based on the idea that a periodical rest-day is for the good of men and that its enforcement is a matter of police regulation, for which it is perfectly proper that the State should make provision. This is the main ground, as we take it, but connected with it is also the principle that those who desire to observe it as a day of religious exercise are entitled to do so in quietness and peace without the disturbance which characterizes an ordinary day of labor. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.5

Of course all the courts do not necessarily enforce this “civil law because of the divine sanction or because of the religious observance of the day,” but because the law directs them to enforce it. That does not, however, touch the real question at all: Why are such laws enacted? Let the Christian Statesman, of November 3, answer:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.6

The State is bound to keep the Sabbath as a witness for God before the eyes of the people. This witness must be kept on the witness stand that men may profit by its testimony. The Sabbath is a witness to the Lordship of the Almighty. God designed that men should not be permitted to forget his authority. He, therefore, so orders it by means of the institutions of the Sabbath, that every seventh day there should be before their eyes a reminder of his supremacy. And so it is that all over this wide world, wherever by human authority, men are required to cease from toil on the Sabbath God has a witness on the stand testifying to his supremacy. This is why wicked men desire to annul the legislation that requires the cessation from usual labor on the Lord’s day—they want to get rid of its testimony to the authority of GOD.... Next to the cross of Calvary, the ordinance of the Sabbath witnesses most eloquently to the benevolence of God. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.7

This is a bold avowal of the real purpose of Sunday laws. Their design is to honor a religious institution as such; and they are enacted in obedience to the demand of the churches. In the Christian Statesman, of July 3, 1890, Rev. W. F. Crafts, the great Sunday law champion, said:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.8

During nearly all our American history the churches have influenced the States to make and improve Sabbath laws. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.9

In like manner, United States District Judge Hammond, in his dictum in the well-known King case, in western Tennessee, said:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.10

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 observance, but only in the sense that he should not himself be disturbed in the practices of his creed: ... which is quite a different thing from saying that in the course of his daily labor.... he might disregard laws made in aid, if you choose to say so, of the religion of other sects. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.11

Again, in the same connection, Judge Hammond, though deciding against King, says:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.12

It is a somewhat humiliating spectacle to see the Sunday advocates trying to justify the continuance of Sunday legislation ... upon the argument that it is not in conflict with the civic dogma of religious freedom. It surely is.... The bare fact that the mass [of the people] desires Sunday as the public day of rest, is enough to justify its civic sanction, and the potentiality of the fact that it is in aid of the religion of that mass might be frankly confessed and not denied. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.13

This is a plain statement of the fact which the Independent seeks to explain away, namely, that Sunday laws rest not upon civil but upon religious grounds, and hence are religious laws, i.e., laws designed to control, to some extent, the people in religious things. They rest confessedly upon religious prejudices and not upon civic reasons. The Independent would better get off the fence. It is impossible to serve two masters. The imprisonment of Seventh-day Adventists for working on Sunday is either right or it is not right. If right, let the Independent fearlessly defend it; if wrong, let it as fearlessly say so, as it has done in the past, and not try to carry water on both shoulders. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.14

It is evident that the Independent is in a great strait betwixt a desire to please the people who demand Sunday laws, and an innate sense of justice which revolts at evident injustice. The third paragraph of the article in question runs thus:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.15

So far as the courts are concerned we have no reason for holding that the imprisonment of seventh day observers for laboring on the first day is in the nature of religious persecution. The courts must consider such cases as are legally brought before them, and must decide accepting to the law. The element of persecution may appear, however, in connection with the complaint. It is quite possible that some, whose zeal for the Christian Sabbath is warmer than their love for their Christian brethren, are led to secure the enforcement of law on account of a feeling of prejudice. However this may be, it is a painful thing to see men who conscientiously observe the seventh day, arraigned and imprisoned for refusing to observe also the first day. It looks like religious persecution; it looks like intolerance toward those who cannot conscientiously accept the views of the majority as to the Sabbath. Making all allowance for the charge that some of the seventh day people in the penalties of the law by ostentatiously violating it, it does seem to me that such cases as those in Maryland and Tennessee are an anachronism. It is perfectly easy so to nullify the law as to permit those who observe the seventh day regularly to have the privilege of working on the first day, provided they do not infringe, in their laboring, the rights of the majority. There is such a provision in the laws of this State and in those of other States, and we wish it were universal. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.16

It may be, as before remarked, that so far as the courts in general are concerned, the motive is not religious. Indeed, we have personally known of judges who were very reluctant to try these Sunday cases, and States attorneys who were loth to prosecute them; but there are very many judges who are in hearty sympathy with just such legislation. A number of judges of various courts have been, and are, identified with the National Reform Association and the American Sabbath Union, thus giving their influence to the enactment of civil laws for the enforcement of religious dogmas. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.17

Moreover, in some cases courts have, by construction, actually made laws of just this character. For instance, the statutes of Tennessee provide a fine of three dollars for violation of the Sunday law, to be recovered before any justice of the peace. But the courts of that State have, by construction, made a law that a repetition of such acts becomes a nuisance, an indictable offense, punishable by a fine in any sum over fifty dollars, at the discretion of the jury, and under that sum at the discretion of the judge. This decision was rendered, and this law made by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in a case where an Adventist was the defendant. And this decision was made in the face of a prior decision by the same court in a similar case, but where no religious issue was involved, to the effect that “to hold that it [ordinary labor] becomes a nuisance when carried on on Sunday, is a perversion of the term ‘nuisance.’” Certainly, in view of this clearly expressed opinion of the same tribunal, there was no legal obligation binding the judges to decide that Sunday work was a nuisance; and this is but one of many cases that might be cited to show that judges as well as prosecuting witnesses have shown unmistakably that they were influenced not by a zeal for the maintenance of civil order, but by religious bigotry worthy of the Dark Ages. AMS December 20, 1894, page 396.18

And so it is not without reason that the Independent says, “It looks like religious persecution; it looks like intolerance toward those who cannot conscientiously accept the views of the majority as to the Sabbath.” Yes, it certainly does look “like religious persecution;” in fact, that is just what it is; dressed, it is true, in modern garb, but the same nevertheless, though still masquerading under another name; for religious persecution has never been willing to use its proper designation. Touching this “civil” disguise of religious laws, the church historian, Robert Baird, has this pungent paragraph:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.1

The rulers of Massachusetts put the Quakers to death and banished “Antinomians” and “Anabaptists,” not because of their religious tenets, but because of their violation of civil laws. This is the justification they pleaded, and it was the best they could make. Miserable excuse! But just as it is; wherever there is a union of Church and State, heresy and heretical practices are apt to become violations of the civil code, and are punished no longer as errors in religion, but infractions of the laws of the land. So the defenders of the Inquisition have always spoken and written in justification of that awful and most iniquitous tribunal.—Religion in America, p. 34. AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.2

This effectually disposes of the “civil law” argument. Of course, in one sense such laws are “civil,” i.e., in the sense that they are enacted and enforced by the civil power; but they are religious in this that they rest upon the religious prejudices of the people and are designed for the protection of religious institutions. AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.3

But the Independent takes another tack. It admits that the Adventists are conscientious, but thinks the matter of scarcely sufficient importance to make so much stir about. It says:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.4

Of course, as it seems to us, our seventh-day brethren of various Christian names make entirely too much of a particular day. It has always seemed to us that the difference as to day is a very narrow basis on which to build up separate denominations of Christians; but it is a matter of conscience with several thousand of our brethren, and we cannot ask them to violate their consciences by working on the seventh day and observing the first. It is impossible, of course, for them to avoid prosecution by observing the first day as well as the seventh, and this is what most of them do. There is in Plainfield, N.J., a very attractive church building, recently erected by the Seventh-day Baptists. When they made their contracts with the builders it was stipulated that no work should be doe on the seventh day. As most of the workingmen were in the habit of observing the first day of the week, work on the building could go on only five days in the week. Of course such a peculiar contract could not be made on the most favorable terms for the church. The contractors had to take the enforced idleness of two days in the week into account, and doubtless the church had to pay a larger amount because of it. AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.5

Now, the first part of this is quite aside from the real issue. It matters not how absurd the faith of any people may be, nor how few that people, they have a natural and inalienable right to practice that faith so long as in so doing they do not infringe the equal rights of others. But the Independent mistakes in supposing that it is possible for Seventh-day Adventists “to avoid prosecution by observing the first day as well as the seventh.” The seventh day is the badge or sign of the true God: “Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.” Ezekiel 20:12. In like manner the Sunday is a counterfeit of the Sabbath, the badge of an apostate power the mark of the papal power, the sign of the usurped authority of the “man of sin” “to appoint feasts and holy days, and to command men under sin.” No Seventh-day Adventist can observe it and remain loyal to God. Therefore, to keep Sunday is with the Adventist to apostatize from God. But the Adventist does not deem it necessary to needlessly offend their neighbors by “ostentatiously” violating Sunday. Adventists are a quiet, well-behaved people on all days of the week; but they insist that they have, from a proper civil standpoint, as much right to follow on Sunday their usual callings as their neighbors have to follow theirs on the seventh day. AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.6

The Independent concludes its article by this paragraph:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.7

It is very often an inconvenience and a matter of hardship to these people to be faithful to their own conscientious convictions and also to obey the civil law. Of course they cannot be compelled to work on the seventh day; but, on the other hand, does their conscience impel them to work on the first day? Hardly, one would say. If there were no alternative it would be better that they should suffer some inconvenience and loss in observing two days in the week than that the one rest day in which the great majority are united should be overthrown. When Mr. Whaley writes from jail to say that he is “thrust into prison for the sake of God’s eternal truth,” he does not truly represent the case. He was not imprisoned for observing the seventh day, but for working on the first day. But the number of seventh-day observers, including the Jews, is not numerous, and the law can be modified to suit their case without overthrowing the foundations of the general rest-day. It is a great deal better to be tolerant in this matter than to engage in what looks like religious persecution. AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.8

This is undertaking to say what is conscience and what is not. Mr. Whaley says he suffered for conscience’ sake; the Independent says not. How could the Independent possibly know what Mr. Whaley’s conscience is except by what he says it is? Resort was formerly had to torture to compel men to reveal the secrets of their hearts; and this is the logic of denying that a man’s conscience is just what he says it is. But inasmuch as Mr. Whaley is an Adventist, and as we know of our personal knowledge that Adventists regard Sunday-keeping in the light in which we have presented it, namely, as a denial of the sovereignty of God, we are morally certain that Mr. Whaley’s conscience is just what he says it is, notwithstanding the Independent’s denial. The Independent’s tortuous logic is simply indicative of the course that the remnant of the religious press will take. It is aptly expressed by a slight adaptation of the words of Pope:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.9

Persecution is a creature of such hideous valen
That to be hated needs but to be seen;
But seen too oft, familiar with his face;
We first endure, then pity, then embrace. AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.10

The Scriptures tell us that persecution is to be the lot of the last church upon earth; and that for which the Independent so weakly apologizes is only the beginning of the end. AMS December 20, 1894, page 397.11

“Back Page” American Sentinel 9, 50, p. 398.

ATJ

A READER, writing from Elgin, Nebr., frankly commends the course of the SENTINEL in general, but says:— AMS December 20, 1894, page 398.1

I don’t think you are justified in your persistent hostility to the Catholic portion of the population of this country. There is nothing in the past history of our country to prove that they are enemies of free government or opposed to a republican form of government. AMS December 20, 1894, page 398.2

Our correspondent mistakes opposition to the doctrines of the Catholic Church for opposition to Catholics themselves. We would not injure a Catholic in any way if we could. We would not deny them a single right enjoyed by others; but we would, if we could, induce them to exchange the errors of popery for the truths of the gospel, the bondage of priestcraft for the glorious liberty of the children of God. AMS December 20, 1894, page 398.3

We have never intimated that Catholics were opposed to a republican form of government. Individual Catholics no doubt love liberty just as well as do Protestants, and they are no doubt just as ardently attached to republican institutions; but the Roman hierarchy is opposed to all liberty outside the Catholic Church, and to all government not controlled by the church. A republic denominated by “the church” would doubtless suit Rome just as well as any other form of government. Indeed, Leo XIII. seems to be rather partial to republics, doubtless because he finds it easier to dominate the people than to control the princes. AMS December 20, 1894, page 398.4

But any government dominated by Rome, or Romish principles, could be nothing but a despotism; and a despotism of the many is not less galling than a despotism of the few or of one. Republican government is a guarantee of civil and religious liberty only so long as the people know what liberty is and prize it as they ought. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” not less in a republic than under any other form of government. AMS December 20, 1894, page 398.5

It is superficial reading and thinking that makes people indifferent to encroachments on their liberties, and cause them to rest in fancied security when the very foundation principles of liberty are being assailed. “Rome never changes.” And she has promised to do for this country what she has done for other countries. Rome never gave freedom to any country, but she has fettered the mind; stifled conscience; clogged the wheels of mental, moral, and spiritual progress; degraded the debauched whole peoples; murdered millions who dared to think for themselves; enshrouded the world in darkness; and she would do the same again. Verily, “Rome never changes.” AMS December 20, 1894, page 398.6