ATJ
THAT it is a Christian duty to obey civil government no believer in the inspiration of the Scriptures can deny. In the thirteenth chapter of Romans it is expressly commanded: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” And again we are admonished to “be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake;” so that the Christian is to obey civil rulers not from fear of punishment, but as doing service unto the Lord. AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.1
But we find it recorded in the Scriptures that in some cases the servants of God refused obedience to civil rulers, and that God vindicated them in so doing. In the third chapter of Daniel we have the record of the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-neg to bow down to the golden image which the king had set up. We have also the record that they were miraculously delivered from the furnace without even so much as the smell of fire upon them. In the sixth chapter of Daniel it is recorded that Daniel himself refused obedience to a decree of the king, properly signed and promulgated; for which disobedience he was cast into the den of lions, from which he was miraculously delivered by the direct interposition of God. AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.2
Coming to the New Testament scriptures, we find an account of the arrest of Peter and John for preaching the gospel. They were commanded by the rulers “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more 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.” Then the rulers further threatened them, and let them go; but they continued preaching, and were shortly arrested again; and the magistrates said unto them: “Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.3
Here is a seeming contradiction in the Scriptures. First, we have the positive injunction to obey the powers that be. The Word declares that they are ordained of God. Then we have the record of several instances where inspired men refused obedience to the powers that be and were miraculously protected in so doing. What is the solution of the apparent difficulty? AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.4
The answer to this question is found in the words of the Saviour, recorded in Matthew 22:21: “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Civil government is indeed ordained of God: but for what purpose? This we may learn by referring again to the thirteenth chapter of Romans, where we read these words concerning the civil magistrate:— AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.5
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.6
It will be observed that in this scripture the same distinction is made between duties which we owe to God, and duties which we owe to men, that is made by our Saviour in the words: “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” The subject under discussion is civil duties. No reference whatever is made to our duty to God, and the commandments referred to, viz.” “Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shall not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet,” all have to do with our relations to our fellow-men. The same thing is shown in the seventh and eigth verses: “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” And again in the tenth verse we are told that “love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” So the subject under discussion is our civil relations to our fellow-men. AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.7
God has, for wise reasons, given civil power into the hands of men, but he has not committed moral government to any human authority. This he could not do without abdicating the throne of the universe: because if men were permitted to govern one another in matters of conscience, if God had ordained civil government for this purpose, there could be no certain moral standard: because it would be man’s duty to obey the civil law, whatever that might be. Thus, in a Roman Catholic country it would be sin not to adore pictures and images, while in a Protestant country it would be a sin to do so. AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.8
On the other hand, if God had not committed civil authority to men, and given them power to enforce their own natural rights as between one another, one of two things would have been inevitable: either punishment of evil doing would have been so long deferred as to afford no protection to those in need of it, or else it would have been so swift and certain as to have terrorized man, and destroyed in a measure his free moral agency. AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.9
That the line is drawn in the Scriptures just where we have indicated, viz., between our duty to God and our duty to man, is evident from the language of Daniel to the king, as recorded in Daniel 6:22. After his deliverance from the lion’s den, Daniel said to the kind: “My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.10
Daniel did not say that he had not disobeyed the king, but he did say he had done no hurt—that is, he had done no wrong to the king nor to any other man. His disobedience was in a matter which was solely between himself and God. It was no concern of the king’s, therefore the king had no right to require obedience at his hand in that matter. This was precisely the position of the apostles when commanded not to preach in the name of Jesus. They said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” The Saviour had commissioned them to preach, and the civil authorities had no right to forbid them to preach, and when they did so forbid them, the apostles had the God-given right to refuse obedience; yea, more, it was their bounden duty to refuse obedience. To have done otherwise would have been to prove disloyal to the God of heaven. AMS April 25, 1895, page 129.11
This principle has been admitted by men in all ages, and thousands have laid down their lives rather than prove untrue to it. Blackstone states a similar principle thus: “This law of nature being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.” This is said not of moral law, but of natural law; but if true of natural law, how much more is it true of moral law? But we have already seen that one man cannot decide for another what are his duties toward God, nor can one man properly require another to discharge his duty toward God. Our Saviour himself, as we have seen, laid down the principle that we are to “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” We are not to render to Cesar the things that are God’s, nor are we to render them to God through Cesar; but we are to render them to God, and to God alone are we responsible. AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.1
In his report communicated to the United States House of Representatives, March 4, 1830, on the petitions requesting a discontinuance of Sunday mails, Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, set forth the principle that man is absolutely independent of any human authority in matters of conscience, in the following language: “The framers of the Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man’s relation with his God is above human legislation and his rights of conscience inalienable. Reasoning was not necessary to establish this truth; we are conscious of it in our own bosoms. It is this consciousness, which, in defiance of human laws, has sustained so many martyrs in tortures and flames. They felt that their duty to God was superior to human enactments, and that man could exercise no authority over their consciences. It is an inborn principle which nothing can eradicate.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.2
The same principle is laid down by President Fairchild in his work on Moral Philosophy. In fact, it has been recognized by Christian men in every country and in all times. The martyrs whom we honor to-day, whose memories we revere, laid down their lives rather that prove disloyal to conscience and to God. In the language of Hon. Richard M. Johnson, “Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history in stained, no victim ever suffered but for the violation of what government denominated the law of God.” This fact alone should be conclusive upon the question under discussion. Human law is imperfect, the administrators of human law are necessarily imperfect, and both human law and its enforcement constantly vary. If conscience were to be guided by human law, there could be, as before stated, no certain standard of right and wrong. That which would be morally wrong in one State might be morally right in an adjoining State, and that which was sin to-day might be virtue to-morrow. But every man knows that he is directly responsible alone to God in things pertaining to God; and that while he is also responsible to God for wrongs done to his neighbor, he is properly amendable in a sense to his fellow-men for such acts. Every man regards any interference with his conscience as tyranny; then why should any man wish to control or interfere with the equal rights of another in matters of conscience? AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.3
But it may be objected that every man cannot be permitted to do that which his conscience tells him may properly be done. This is very true. For instance, Guiteau, the assassin of President Garfield, claimed that in shooting the president, he was doing God’s service. His plea, as to his belief, may or may not have been true. There was no possible way of demonstrating its truth or falsity; neither was there any necessity for inquiring into that question. It is a fundamental principle that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: that amonmg these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” President Garfield had the same right to life that Guiteau had, and Guiteau had no right to deprive President Garfield of life. Neither has any man the right, under the plea of conscience, to deprive his fellow-man of any natural right; or to trample upon, or interfere in any way with, any equal right of his fellowman; nor does he do so in exercising his own inalienable, God-given right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. For instance, the Catholic does not trench upon any natural right of his Protestant neighbor by going to mass or confession, by making the sign of the cross, or by abstaining from meat on Friday. His Protestant neighbor may regard him as foolish and superstitious, and may feel a certain sense of annoyance due to his knowledge that the Catholic believes and practices as he does, but this does not prevent the Protestant from freely holding and practicing tenets of his religion. AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.4
It is equally true, in the matter of Sabbath observance, that one man’s failure to observe a Sabbath does not prevent another man from either resting or working upon that day. If one person chooses to work, and he does that work in a civil and orderly manner, it can in no way interfere with the right of another man to rest, neither can it interfere with his right to worship. We very properly have laws protecting peaceable assemblies upon all days, and we have special laws protecting religious assemblies from disturbance. These laws are available upon any day of the week, and may be enforced at any time by those who feel that their rights are interfered with. Why, then, should we have laws requiring all men to rest upon Sunday, because some men wish to worship upon that day? There can be but one reason, and that is the “reason” of religious bigotry and intolerance. AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.5
There can be no reason why one man should rest simply because another wishes to worship. If this were a natural right, it would be the natural right of every man. Therefore it would also be the duty of the government to prohibit labor on the sixth and seventh days, as well as upon the first, because rights belong to the minority as much as to the majority. Indeed, government is for the purpose of preserving the rights of the minority as against the majority; but there is no such natural right. And that there ought to be no such artificial or statutory right must be evident to every candid, thinking man. The framers of the National Constitution provided that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and several of the State Constitutions are even more explicit in their guarantees of religious liberty. The Declaration of Rights of the State of Tennessee declares “that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.6
The Declaration of Rights of the State of California provides that “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this State.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.7
The Declaration of Rights of the State of Maine provides that “all men have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no one shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty, or estate, in worshiping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, nor for his religious professions or sentiments, provided he does not disturb the public peace, nor obstruct others in their religious worship.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.8
The Declaration last quoted is a distinct recognition of the line of demarcation between civil and religious duties. The line is properly drawn; and absolute right of conscience is guaranteed in everything not trenching upon the equal rights of others. It is true that this principle has not been adhered to strictly in any State; no more has the constitutional guarantee that there should be no distinction made and no preference given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. It was evidently the purpose of the framers of the constitutions of the various States to absolutely prohibit a preference by law for any religion. The American idea is not that of toleration merely, but of absolute natural right and equality in religious matters. But in almost every State we find laws requiring cessation of secular affairs on Sunday; thus giving a decided preference and advantage to those sects which regard Sunday as the Sabbath. That such laws do discriminate between sects, and that they do give preference to one sect over another, is thus clearly shown by Chief Justice Terry, of California, in an opinion delivered in 1858. His honor said:— AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.9
In a community composed of persons of various religious denominations, having different days of worship, each considering his own as sacred from secular employment, all being equally considered and protected under the Constitution, a law is passed which in effect recognizes the sacred character of one of these days, by compelling all others to abstain from secular employment, which is precisely one of the modes in which its observance is manifested, and required by the creed of that sect to which it belongs as a Sabbath. Is not this a discrimination in favor of the one? Does it require more than an appeal to one’s common sense to decide that this is a preference? And when the Jew or seventh-day Christian complains of this, is it any answer to say, Your conscience is not constrained, you are not compelled to worship or to perform religious rites on that day, nor forbidden to keep holy the day which you esteem as a Sabbath? We think not, however high the authority which decides otherwise. AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.10
It is true that this view has not usually prevailed in courts of last resort; but courts are not infallible, and it is certain that in sustaining Sunday laws they have violated the fundamental principle of liberty of conscience. AMS April 25, 1895, page 130.11
It is claimed by some, however, that Sunday is merely a civil regulation. But how can that be civil which rests upon a religious reason? How can that be a civil regulation which would not exist were not the institution which it enforces religious? Even granting that nature demands that man shall rest one day in seven (which is not admitted, however), what is there in nature to teach that all men must rest at one and the same time? Why must a particular day be singled out and all men be required to rest upon it? Why do we not find in some States or in some communities a law requiring all men to rest habitually upon one day each week instead of laws requiring all men to rest upon Sunday? and why is it that where we do find permission granted for those to work upon Sunday who rest upon another day, they are required to rest “conscientiously and religiously”? The evidence is overwhelming that Sunday laws are religious in their origin, in their purpose, and in their enforcement. AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.1
The tendency among men is not to work too much. It is true that some people are overworked, but it is from force of circumstances rather than from inclination; and it is safe to say that more physical injury accrues to men from night work and from irregular hours than from failure to rest one day in seven. As a matter of fact, comparatively few men do labor continuously and arduously seven days in each week; so that the civil argument is not sustained either by reason or by facts; and no man will deny that were it not for the religious regard for the day, were it not for the fact that a large majority of the people believed that some sacredness attached to the day, nobody would be required by law to observe it; though it might possibly be held as a legal holiday in order that those who desire leisure upon that day might have it. This is true at the present time in California, but in no other State does the Sunday law rest upon that basis. AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.2
We have no compulsory holidays. The Fourth of July, Christmas and Thanksgiving Day are legal holidays, but nobody is required to observe them; nobody is punished for working upon them; nobody is forbidden to do upon those days any secular work, or to follow any secular employment. The fact is that compulsory Sunday observance is a relic of the union of Church and State. It is an inheritance from colonial days when religion was enforced by law, and when men were compelled to attend and support houses of worship. Such statutes have properly no place in our system of government. They are contrary to the spirit of our free institutions, and show that we have not yet reached the plan of absolute religious right, but that we simply tolerate dissenters. “The Constitution,” says Hon. Richard M. Johnson, “regards the conscience of the Jew as sacred as that of the Christian.” But in practice neither the United States nor any State except California has shown itself equal to a practical application of this principle. AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.3
ATJ
A CORRESPONDENT sends as the Western Recorder (St. Louis), a Baptist paper, published by the Baptist Book Concern, containing an article entitled, “Christian vs. Jewish Sabbath,” which he asks us to notice. Space will not permit of an extended notice, neither in such a notice needed. The author sums up his argument in three paragraphs which we quote with our comments inserted within brackets:— AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.1
“Condensed reasons for observing the Christian Sabbath.” [The Bible nowhere calls the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath.] AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.2
“1. It was the most appropriate day which a ransomed people could observe: [The most appropriate day for a ransomed people to observe is the day commanded of God]: being that on which the Saviour was raised from the dead and the Spirit inaugurated his reign.” [The Bible does not record that the Spirit inaugurated his reign on the first day of the week.] AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.3
“2. We have precedent, in a way [Yes, in a way, in the same way which Roman Catholics have precedents for purgatory, prayers for the dead, Mariolatry, invocation of saints, infallibility, etc.], to show that it was custom, for Gentile churches, under apostolic sanction, to meet for public religious worship and for celebrating the supper on the first day of the week: and there could be no higher authority emanating from inspired men.” [There is but one instance recorded in the New Testament where a public meeting was held on the first day of the week, and that was a night meeting beginning Saturday night and continuing until Sunday morning, after which the rest of the first day was consumed in traveling.] AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.4
“3. We have the sanction of the Holy Spirit for the observance of the first day, in that the Spirit inspired Luke and Paul to record the fact, without censure, that the Gentile Christians did observe the first day instead of the Jewish Sabbath. [Neither Luke, Paul nor any other New Testament writer records any such change.] This ought, one would think, to be sufficient to justify [to] even the most scrupulous that the Christian Sabbath [meaning Sunday] is the day God designed should be observed by his people during the present dispensation.” [It ought not to be sufficient because it is not biblical.] AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.5
ATJ
THE following letter represents the views of the average Sunday-law advocate, stated with an unusual frankness and apparent sincerity. The author deserves a candid Christian answer, which we will endeavor to give here for the benefit of others who may be likeminded. To save space in replying we have numbered the principal points and will notice them under corresponding figures. We must of necessity be brief, and ask therefore that our brevity be not taken for harshness, for we entertain the kindest regard for our correspondent:— AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.1
EDITOR OF THE AMERICAN SENTINEL.—Dear Sir: Some one has been so kind as to send to my address two or three copies of the SENTINEL. I have read them with care, and I like the stand the SENTINEL takes against the encroachment of the Church on this American continent. And I believe it is high time for the American nation to take cognizance of the facts there stated; and I feel sorry to hear of my fellow Christians being in jail. But I am led to inquire, Who is to blame for the incarceration? is it not the law-breakers! (1) I would ask the SENTINEL what opinion Rome must form (2) to see a paper so thoroughly American in its name and sentiment, encouraging violation of its own laws in reference to the holy Sabbath of America (3)—the observance of which has been the safeguard of our nation, the hope of our future. (4) AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.2
A good deal of Scripture has been quoted to show that the persecuted (Sabbatarian) brethren are right and the American nation wrong. Then if they are right, why do they complain! (5) Read Matthew 5:10, 11. “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.” But is this falsely! (6) Our American Sabbath is the law of our nation, and should be respected by every citizen. Our American laws do not say to the Seventh-day Baptist, You shall not keep your day of rest, not at all; so your religious liberty is not interfered with whatever. (7) But then the nation has made a law that the Sabbath day (the day you call the first day; (8) shall be the day of rest of Sabbath in America; and these incarcerated ones have risen up in rebellion against the law (9) even when the nation has not tried to interfere with their way of thinking. (10) AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.3
Perhaps this may be the cause of the complaint, instead of rejoicing, simply because it is not “falsely” for their sake. AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.4
But are there not other words and examples of one Lord Jesus, that it would be well for the seventh-day brethren to observe? First, the meek example of Jesus, Matthew 27:52: “And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.” (11) Or would it not be better to do as he commanded his disciples to do, Matthew 23:2: “All therefore whatsoever they bade you observe, that observe and do.” (12) Or would it not be wise for them, when a righteous nation has adopted a law, to observe, (13) and they imagine (14) they should observe another day, and the nation says; “Well, my friends, you may keep your day, we don’t object, but you must keep ours.” (15) I say, would it not be wisdom to flee into another country if one can be found where the day they think right may be the national law? (16) But I am in favor of keeping the law in regard to the Sabbath. I see no conflict between the law and the Bible. I am also in favor of compelling all on this continent to conform to our national laws, Jew and Gentile, bond and free. Let us keep our Sabbath day holy and the laws of our land sacred, and not violate our righteous laws and get the penalty and then complain of persecution. The officers are justified in doing their duty. Let us as a nation arise and let the world know that we are in favor of our holy Sabbath day and the law of our land. AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.5
I remain yours in favor of the American Sabbath, AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.6
MOSES HARVEY. AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.7
Bar 89, Plains P. O., Pa. AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.8
1. The “law-breakers” are no more to blame for this incarceration than were the three Hebrews who were cast into the fiery furnace. Both violated laws which conflicted with their duty to God. The Hebrews violated a law which sought to compel them to outwardly worship a golden image. The Tennessee Seventh-day Adventists violated a law which sought to compel them to outwardly worship (Obedience is the highest form of worship, 1 Samuel 15:22) the government which demanded obedience to its Sunday-Sabbath and in addition, to worship the papacy which originated the Sunday-Sabbath in opposition to the “Sabbath of the Lord.” God blessed the Hebrews in their violation of the law of Nebuchadnezzar, and he is blessing the persecuted seventh-day observers of Tennessee. The Lord delivered the Hebrews from the fiery furnace, and through the instrumentality of Judge J. G. Parks and Governor Turney. He has delivered the Adventists from the Dayton jail. AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.9
2. We care not what opinion “Rome” or any other organization or individual may form regarding our attitude to the government, so long as we are faithful to God and just to our fellow-men. However, Rome would despise us if we submitted our consciences to the keeping of the civil power. AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.10
3. The SENTINEL begs to be relieved of all responsibility for “our laws in reference to the Holy Sabbath of America.” These laws are not our laws. We acknowledge allegiance to but one Sabbath law and that law commands the observance of the holy “Sabbath of the Lord,” a day which precedes the “holy Sabbath of America.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.11
4. God pity our nation if its hope for the future depends on the observance of an institution of the Roman Catholic Church. AMS April 25, 1895, page 131.12
5. They do not complain. On the contrary, the walls of their prisons who with prayer to God for their persecutors. The SENTINEL has repeatedly said that the publication of these persecutions was not to create sympathy for the persecuted, but to save the people from ignorantly fighting against God. Our position is summed up in these words of the “Lord of the Sabbath“: “Offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.1
6. Is it falsely? We are prosecuted for violating the Sabbath by laboring on the first day of the week. Are we guilty? Is the first day of the week the Sabbath? Let the Lord answer: “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Exodus 20:9, 10. “When the Sabbath was past.... very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.” Mark 14:1, 2. And now, is the Sabbath the first day of the week, or the day before the first day of the week? The seventh-day observers in Tennessee believe the Bible and keep the Sabbath, the seventh day, and labor on the “six working days” (Ezekiel 46:1), because of which they are accused of breaking the Lord’s Sabbath. Come now. Brother Harvey, wish the Bible open before you, we ask in all candor, are they accused truthfully or falsely? AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.2
7. The law requiring the three Hebrews to worship the golden image did not forbid them to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: but only that they worship the image also. It is true that the Sunday law does not forbid seventh-day keepers to worship the Lord of the Sabbath by worshiping him on the seventh day, but only asks that all men worship the government also by obeying the law enforcing the observance of the “holy Sabbath of America.” “Ye cannot serve to masters,” says the Lord, and so the Seventh-day Adventist cannot worship God and a government in conflict with God. AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.3
8. We call it the first day because God calls it the first day. Matthew 28:1; Mark 14:1; Luke 23:56 and 24:1. AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.4
9. Their “rebellion” is of the same character as that of Daniel, the three Hebrews, Peter and John, Paul and Silas, and the Christian martyrs of succeeding centuries. AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.5
10. The government has interfered with their way of thinking. Their way of thinking is that they ought not to treat one of God’s “six working days” as they treat his holy rest day, but the law says they must treat the “holy Sabbath of America” with the same outward reverence with which they treat the “holy” “Sabbath of the Lord.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.6
11. It is true that Jesus at his trial remained silent amid the false accusations of his enemies, but it is also true that he told his followers, “When they bring you into the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” Luke 12:11, 12. The persecuted Seventh-day Adventists follow this instruction, and in fulfillment of his promise the Lord is giving them on such occasions “a mouth and wisdom!” which all their adversaries are not able “to gainsay nor resist.” Luke 21:15. AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.7
12. This was said of “the Scribes and Pharisees who sit in Moses’ seat.” But neither Moses Harvey nor yet “this American nation” can prove what they are entitled to sit in Moses’ seat. God has brought to an end the theocracy of Israel, and all attempts to revive it “until he come, whose right it is,” is a usurpation of the prerogative of God and is anti-Christian. AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.8
13. A righteous nation will not enact a law which attempts to compel men to violate God’s standard of righteousness. Psalm 119:172. AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.9
14. They do not “imagine” that they should observe another day; they know that they ought, for the Lord plainly commands them to observe another day. AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.10
15. The law of King Nebuchadnezzar did not say we must not worship your God, but only said your must worship ours. If our correspondent is correct, the Baptists, should they get the power in some States, would have the right to immerse all the people who had not been immersed, and when Methodists and others objected they could quietly reply: “We don’t object to your being sprinkled, but you must be immersed also, for that is our baptism.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.11
.16. Our correspondent suggests that Seventh-day Adventists flee to some country where they would not be persecuted. But to what country can they flee? Brother Harvey is in favor of driving us out of the “land of the free” because we will not submit the keeping of our consciences to him and other likeminded men; but he knows there is no other earthly country to which we can flee. The oppressed of all other countries have in the past been flowing to this; therefore an order to leave this country is simply a command to “get off the earth.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.12
But now that Brother Harvey advises us to move to another country, we will inform him that we are preparing to go. We have known for a long time that the spirit of persecution would become so bitter in this country that those who refused to “worship the beast (the papacy) and his image (the “land of the free” transformed by a union of Church and State into a persecuting power like the papacy) and receive his mark” (the Sunday-Sabbath) by obeying the Sunday laws—would have to move to “a better country that is, an heavenly.” Hebrews 11:9-16. These persecutions indicate that that time is not far distant, and we are getting ready to go and trying to get Brother Harvey and as many others as we can to get ready too. Those who are ready to meet the Lord when he comes for us as he has promised (John 14:3) are described as “they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 14:12. AMS April 25, 1895, page 132.13
ATJ
THE earnest, consistent Protestant could not but notice the silence maintained by the press of the country toward the pope’s recent bold, unequivocal condemnation of the American principle of separation of Church and State. The following, printed in the Catholic World for April, in an article by Walter Elliott, a priest of the “Paulist Fathers,” entitled the “Musings of a Missionary,” will present what papists regard as the reason for this silence:— AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.1
The press dare not openly attack the Church, and in large part has no desire to do so, and it is quite accessible to the publication of articles on the Catholic side. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.2
The press of the country is a powerful factor for good or ill, and if it is true that the Roman Catholic Church has silenced its protest against Catholic encroachments, the final and complete triumph of the papacy in this country will be comparatively easy. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.3
THE Catholic Mirror, of April 6, attempts another apology for the violence attempted by Catholics against ex-priest Slattery. The apology is a covert encouragement to violence as the reader will see. The Mirror says:— AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.4
Slattery came very near precipitating a riot in Memphis similar to that of which he was the cause in Savannah. How can the people be blamed for showing indignation against this man? It is not the doctrines of the Catholic Church that he attacks, but the character of the priests and nuns. Catholics know how pure and devoted their religious are, and the feeding of anger, when they are libelled by a wretch like Slattery become uncontrollable. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.5
The Mirror asks “how can the people be blamed” for trying to kill ex-priest Slattery, and acknowledges that under the circumstances the “rage” of Catholics is “uncontrollable.” If this were the apology of natural, unconverted men who made no profession of Christianity, who did not pretend to follow the example of Him “who, when he was reviled, reviled not again,” we would not think very strange of it; but even then we would not expect to hear these sentiments uttered by a good citizen who always favors redressing his grievances by the orderly, legal methods provided by law rather than by the anarchistic methods of mob violence. Since Rome returns railing for railing how can she claim to be Christian? and since she admits that her children are “uncontrollable” when their religious teachers are spoken against, how can she lay claim to being the only force that can control the mobs of all the world in the approaching social upheaval! Let her control the “uncontrollable” within herself before posing as the only power that can control the anarchy outside the church. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.6
TWO Baptist papers have taken their stand with the Examiner in defense of the religious liberty principle violated in the imprisonment of seventh-day observers in Tennessee. These two papers are the Watchman (Boston) and the Indiana Baptist (Indianapolis). The first named speaks thus:— AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.7
It looks as if the Seventh-day Adventists would be driven out of Tennessee. Although judges and lawyers condemn the statutes under which several of their people were arraigned, convictions have followed. A number of them, refusing to pay the cost of their prosecution, have been committed to prison. The facts of the case, it is truly alleged, go to illustrate the truth of the words of Thomas Jefferson, that, where a bad law is on the statute books, “a single bigot may set the machinery of the law in motion, and better men be his victims.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.8
The Indiana Baptist quotes the above and follows it with this paragraph:— AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.9
We have little respect for the “arguments” by which the seventh-day advocates so persistently urge their peculiar views, but we do heartily sympathize with them in the persecution to which they are subjected by bigots. Roger Williams should be on earth again to teach even some Baptists that “the civil magistrate has no authority to punish breaches of the first table of the Decalogue.” We are yet far from the recognition of the right of every man to perfect religious liberty. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.10
What Baptist paper will be the next to take the side of Roger Williams? We are keeping a roll of honor and will promptly record the first consistent utterances of those papers heretofore silent or the published repentance of those who have spoken for the persecutors. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.11
ATJ
IN a previous issue the SENTINEL announced that J. W. Huddlestone, a Seventh-day Adventist of Fort Smith, Ark., had been convicted and fined for laboring on Sunday, notwithstanding the Sunday law of the State expressly exempts from its penalties any “person who, from religious belief, keeps any other day than the first day of the week, usually called the Christian Sabbath.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.1
As was also announced an appeal was taken from the decision of the justice, and this appeal is developing some points of peculiar interest. It seems that the prosecuting attorney has despaired of being able to convict in the face of the exemption clause unless he can prove that Mr. Huddleston has not, from religious belief, kept the seventh day; and this he declares he is able to do. He says he has witnesses who will swear that Mr. Huddleston has broken his own Sabbath. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.2
As Seventh-day Adventists are known for the strictness with which they observe the Sabbath, the reader will wonder how the prosecuting attorney will sustain the charge. He will undertake to do it thus: Seventh-day observers not only follow the Bible in regard to the day of the Sabbath, but they also follow the scripture direction regarding the time of commencing and closing the Sabbath. The Bible directs that, “from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbaths” (Leviticus 23:32); and then defines the evening to be at the setting of the sun (Mark 1:32); but the law of Arkansas defines the day as beginning and ending at midnight. Therefore when Mr. Huddleston labored or made purchases after the setting of the sun on Saturday night after the Sabbath or seventh day of the Bible was past, he was still laboring and making purchases on the seventh day of the law of Arkansas, and thereby failing to keep “any other day as the Sabbath,” in the strict legal sense. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.3
To the fair-minded such petty persecution seems impossible, but as history abundantly shows there is no lengths to which the self-appointed avenger of what he may term a breach of God’s law, will not go to accomplish his purpose. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.4
The trial is set for April 28, and the prosecuting attorney promises to crowd the case on the lines here indicated. The spirit with which this will be done can be learned from a remark made by the prosecuting attorney to Mr. Huddleston, at their last interview, to the effect that Seventh-day Adventists were “a set of d——d fools, who ought not to be allowed a place on the earth, but ought every one to be in hell.” AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.5
Meanwhile let Seventh-day Adventists manifest the spirit of the Master, “who, when he was reviled, reviled not again.” Let them pray for their persecutors, for who knows but they are as honest as Paul who said: “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Acts 26:9. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.6
“Bless them which persecute you; bless, and curse not.” Romans 12:14. AMS April 25, 1895, page 136.7