“STEADFAMST she looks to heaven, and breathes the Sacred Name, unmoved by lover’s plea, or sword, or rack, or flame. O holy hope in God! O fearless faith divine! undimmed by death, or time, or tears; immortal and sublime!AMS July 18, 1895, page 225.1

“Edwin Long was not only won for himself merited fame as an artist, but more, he has in this picture given to the world a double object lesson on the cruelty of religious persecution and the triumphs of Christian fortitude, without an equal.AMS July 18, 1895, page 225.2

“Christ or Diana’ is a masterly representation of the conflict between Christianity and paganism. Studying the inspired face of the martyr and the countenance of her anxious lover,—who, realizing the cruel death that awaits a refusal, urges her to be ‘subject to the powers that be,’—one forgets the present, and absorbed in the scene, involuntarily asks, ‘Will she compromise’? To cast upon the flame a few grains of the incense would be to recognize the worship of the goddess Diana and reject Christ. What a contest! It is the Roman world against conscience. A religion hoary with age and resplendent with earthly glory, is determined to crush the new and simple faith of the despised Nazarene.AMS July 18, 1895, page 225.3

“Silence seals the assembly. Again, the gray-haired priest repeats the conditions: ‘Let her cast the incense; one grain and she is free’—as if loth to sacrifice so sweet a life. The musicians wait with more than usual interest. Every face is solemn. But as the needle seeks the pole, so the eyes of the maiden turn heavenward, and she is steadfast. Her doom is sealed; Christianity triumphs; Rome is baffled. The emperor proclaims liberty of conscience, and the battle is won; but won for that age only, for history has many times repeated the scene. When men cease to suffer for principle, either sin or righteousness will have perished from the earth.”AMS July 18, 1895, page 225.4

The painter and the sculptor vie with each other in the effort to do honor to that faithfulness to principle so beautifully portrayed by our illustration. But reader, this faithful martyr was not a martyr in the eyes of the ruling Church and State of her time. She was but the despised follower of the despised Nazarene. Her steadfastness was termed stubbornness, and she died not as a martyr, but as a malefactor, a destroyer of religion and social order, an enemy to the peace and dignity of the State.AMS July 18, 1895, page 226.1

Thus it has always been. Faithfulness to conscience has been denounced as stubbornness by the contemporary historian. Decade after decade has passed before the “hated heretic” is viewed in the true light of a martyr to conscience.AMS July 18, 1895, page 226.2

Tennessee Against Conscience.

Eight men are not in jail at Dayton, Tenn., for refusing to cast the single grain of incense on the altar of what they believe to be a false worship. ^{1See page 229.} Sunday, by many good people, is held to be the sabbath. They have a right so to think, and to conform their lives accordingly. But many who hold this belief demand more than this. They demand that their neighbors shall be made to at least act as if they too believed that Sunday is the sabbath. To this end they appeal to the government to enact statutes which shall force their dissenting neighbors to recognize that Sunday is the sabbath.AMS July 18, 1895, page 226.3

Some of these dissenters, like the eight men now in jail, not only believe that Saturday, the seventh day, is the only Sabbath of the Bible, but they believe that the Sunday-sabbath is an institution of the papacy, the “mark of the beast,” the observance of which by one who is cognizant of this fact is to invite upon him the “unmingled wrath of God.” With them life and death are at stake. That they are terribly in earnest no one can doubt. The kind-hearted judge, in passing sentence upon them, declared: “It must be patent, even to the most casual observer, that they are good citizens, who are thoroughly conscientious in the course they have taken.”AMS July 18, 1895, page 226.4

And so now, instead of having pagan Rome against conscience, as presented in our illustration, we have the “Christian” commonwealth of Tennessee against conscience.AMS July 18, 1895, page 226.5

The Possibilities Involved.

If both Tennessee and the persecuted men continue firm, what is to prevent the infliction of the death penalty as a final punishment? The logic of the case demands it. In similar cases last March the judge fined the same offenders one dollar and costs, but immediately remitted the fine and expressed a regret that he could not remit the costs. But at this the second offense, he increased the fine more than seven-fold as a punishment for continuing in a course which he admitted was dictated by “thoroughly conscientious” motives,—a course, too, which injured no other human being. Being “thoroughly conscientious” in the course they have taken they would meet the contempt of the judge and all men if they should now violate their consciences for fear of fines and imprisonment. If they continue to be “thoroughly conscientious,” they will certainly soon come before the judge for a third offense, and, following the course pursued in the second case he will multiply the penalty in accordance with the gravity of continued violation, and so on from one degree of punishment to another until life imprisonment or capital punishment is reached. All this is involved in the first attempt of the State to coerce the conscience, and two steps toward this final and fatal result have been taken in Rhea County, Tenn. The great historian, Gibbon, thus forcibly states the principle which is being so vividly exemplified in that State:—AMS July 18, 1895, page 226.6

It is incumbent on the authors of persecution previously to reflect whether they are determined to support it in the last extreme. They excite the flame which they strive to extinguish; and it soon becomes necessary to chastise the contumacy, as well as the crime of the offender. The fine, which he is unable or unwilling to discharge, exposes his person to the severity of the law; and his contempt for lighter penalties suggests the use and propriety of capital punishment.AMS July 18, 1895, page 226.7

Loyalty to Principle, Secular and Sacred.

Faithfulness to principle in secular matters is applauded by men of the world. The men of the Revolution who refused to pay the “three pence a pound” tax on tea are accounted heroes to-day. And when Embassador Pinckney resolutely answered a foreign power, “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute,” our nation applauded the patriotic utterance and prepared to sacrifice a million human lives to defend the principle at stake. How much more important is it that Christian men should remain true to a principle which involves loyalty to their Creator and Redeemer, and upon which turns their weal or woe for both time and eternity! Ought not their watchword to be, Thousands of loyal hearts for the defense of truth and right, but not one cowardly compromise with error and oppression?AMS July 18, 1895, page 226.8

“Christ and Sabbath Laws” American Sentinel 10, 29, p. 226.

ATJ

WHEN Christ came to earth more than eighteen hundred years ago, there were statutes enforcing false sabbath keeping, and he deliberately violated them. Healing the sick on the Sabbath day was regarded by the Pharisees as “work” and therefore a breach of the sabbath (Luke 13:10-16, and John 5:5-18); and many of the people were afraid of these false-sabbath statutes and would suffer their racking pains until the going down of the sun, after which they would crowd about the Lord of the Sabbath for his healing touch. Mark 1:21, 32, 33.AMS July 18, 1895, page 226.1

But Jesus was not afraid to violate these wicked statutes even though he knew that an effort would be made to kill him if he did. Mark 3:1-6. He violated statutes which enforced false sabbath keeping in order to teach the people to hallow the true Sabbath which had been hidden by these traditional enactments. Jesus Christ is the great model Sabbath keeper. His followers are to-day commanded to “follow his steps.” This is what Seventh-day Adventists are doing. They violate statutes which enforce a false sabbath. They do it in order to teach the world that Sunday is not the Sabbath and that the seventh day is. The Seventh-day Adventists now in jail at Dayton, Tenn., are there for doing that which their Lord did. “The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you.” John 15:20.AMS July 18, 1895, page 226.2

“Roger Williams Banished Because He Opposed Sunday Laws” American Sentinel 10, 29, p. 227.

ATJ

THE following paragraphs from the “Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,” article “Roger Williams,” show that seventh-day observers are in good company in suffering because of their opposition to compulsory Sunday observance:—AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.1

He [Williams] went to Salem, where, in April [1631] the church asked him to become their teacher. But, as we learn from Winthrop, “at a court held at Boston (upon information to the governor that they of Salem had called Mr. Williams to the office of teacher), a letter was written from the court to Mr. Endicott to this effect; that whereas Mr. Williams had refused to join with the congregation at Boston, because they would not make a public declaration of their repentance for having communion with the churches of England while they lived there; and besides had declared his opinion that the magistrate might not punish a breach of the sabbath nor any other offense, as it was [which was] a breach of the first table [first four commandments of the Decalogue]; therefore they marveled they would choose him without advising with the councils and withal desiring that they would forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.” The ferences was, that, in the summer or early autumn, Williams withdrew to Plymouth....AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.2

Williams returned to Salem in the latter half of the year 1633, some of the Plymouth people having become so attached to him that they removed thither also. He became assistant to the pastor, and on the death of the latter, in 1634, was himself made pastor of the church. During his whole ministry there, he held the very highest place in the love and honor of the people of Salem.AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.3

But certain of his opinions brought upon him the displeasure of the authorities of the colony. He was repeatedly cited to appear before the General Court; and in October, 1635, it was “ordered that the said Mr. Williams shall depart out of this jurisdiction within six weeks now next ensuing.” Permission was afterwards given him to remain at Salem until spring, but as it was soon reported, that, at gatherings in his own house, he had continued to utter the objectionable teachings, an officer was sent to Salem in January, 1636, to apprehend him, in order to put him on board ship, and send him back to England. On the officer’s arrival at Salem, it was found that Williams had departed three days before, whither could not be learned.AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.4

The most noted of the proscribed opinions of Williams was the doctrine that the civil magistrate should not inflict punishment for purely religious error. It has been urged that it was not simply for is doctrine of religious liberty, but for other opinions also, that Williams was banished. This, however, will not exculpate the General Court; for we find them enacting a law, that “If any person or person within the jurisdiction ... shall deny ... their [the magistrates’] lawful right or authority ... to punish the outward breaches of the first table ... every such person or persons shall be sentenced to banishment.” In other words, though it be admitted that Williams was banished for other utterances, together with the proclamation of the doctrine of religious freedom, the court deemed it proper to decree banishment for that teaching alone. Certain others of Williams’ opinions were condemned, e. g. those regarding the royal patent, the administration of certain oaths, etc.; and it is declared by some that these doctrines threatened the civil peace and thus rendered him justly liable to exile. But in Rhode Island, where the teachings of Williams and of all others were freely permitted, life and property and civil order were as secure as in Massachusetts. In other words, the Rhode Island experiment showed that Williams’ teachings were not dangerous to civil order, and that therefore his banishment from Massachusetts was unnecessary, and consequently unjust.AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.5

There is a striking parallel between the banishment of Roger Williams and the imprisonment of Seventh-day Adventists to-day. Williams denied the right of the civil magistrate to punish men for breaking a sabbath; so do Seventh-day Adventists. The persecutors of Williams declared that his opposition to Sunday statutes would destroy civil order; the persecutors of Seventh-day Adventists assert the same. Williams continued his opposition to Sunday statutes in the face of an enactment forbidding it; so do Seventh-day Adventists. For his opposition Williams was banished; for their opposition Seventh-day Adventists are not in jail at Dayton, Tenn.AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.6

Our secular histories are full of praise for Roger Williams, because of his opposition to Church and State union of his day, and Baptist historians and Baptists generally are proud, and justly so, of his noble stand against religious legislation. But if he was right in opposing Sunday statutes then, and in suffering banishment rather than cease his opposition to them, why ought not all Baptists and all admirers of Williams to rally to the defense of Seventh-day Adventists who are to-day, and in America, suffering imprisonment for the same offense? Why is it that certain Baptist papers praise the conduct of Roger Williams and denounce his persecutors, while denouncing the same conduct in Seventh-day Adventists, and indorsing their arrest and imprisonment? Consistency, thou art a jewel!AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.7

The Indiana Baptist states the situation forcibly when it says:—AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.8

Roger Williams should be on earth again to teach 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 July 18, 1895, page 227.9

Yes, a second Roger Williams is sorely needed; and we have hopes that we are to have such a man in the person of H. L. Wayland, of the Examiner National Baptist and Christian Inquirer, who is now doing noble, courageous work in that direction.AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.10

In the words of the Examiner and National Baptist: “We wonder that the very stones do not cry out against such travesties of justice, that Christian men do not lift their voices in protest against such wicked perversion of religion, this insult to the name of Christ. And, in particular, why do not Papists, whose fathers stood against the world for soul-liberty, make themselves heard when these relics of medieval bigotry and persecuting intolerance are found in our free country?”AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.11

We appeal to all Baptists and all lovers of justice and right. Look upon the scene of Roger Williams bidding good-by to home and loved ones before fleeing into the wilderness from the hand of persecution! Look at that scene and remember that it has been repeated scores of times in the last few years in the States of Tennessee, Maryland, and Georgia! The eight imprisoned men at Dayton, Tenn.,—imprisoned for their faithfulness to the same principle for which Roger Williams was banished—are men with human hearts, men who love their homes and families and are in turn loved by wife and children; and likely there were moistened eyes when the parting came, and the little ones clung to father’s side. Oh, when will men cease to martyr the true heroes of their day while engaged in building the monuments of those martyred by their fathers! Thank God, there are men to-day who with a weeping wife pressing their hand and the little ones clinging to their garments, will, with resolute face, look heavenward and pledge freedom and fortune, honor and life, to the maintenance of truth and religious liberty! Thank God that faithfulness to truth and conscience has not perished from the earth!AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.12

“Baptists and Sunday Statutes” American Sentinel 10, 29, pp. 227, 228.

ATJ

THE following from a standard publication of the Baptist Church states clearly the position which that church has held from the days of Roger Williams, against a union of Church and State in general, and compulsory Sunday observance in particular:—AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.1

The duty of the civil magistrate in regard to the observance of the Lord’s day.AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.2

Christ said (John 18:36): “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” Here Christ refuses to employ physical force. His kingdom is not of this world: and civil laws and the force of the magistrate are not the means to promote its advancement. It is a kingdom of truth and love, because each man is a free moral agent under the government of God, he is accountable to God. This personal accountability to God carries with it the right of every man to decide for himself his religious belief and his worship. With these the State has no right to interfere. These rights of conscience are inalienable. For the protection of these, with other inalienable rights, States are organized, civil laws enforced, and magistrates elected. So far as religion is concerned, the sphere of the State is described in one word—PROTECTION....AMS July 18, 1895, page 227.3

However much we may deprecate the demoralizing tendencies of Sunday theaters and concerts, games and excursions, and the sale of candies and fruits and newspapers on the Lord’s day, still we ask for legal restraint upon such things only in so far as they may directly interfere with public religious worship. As Christians, we ask of the State only protection in the exercise of our rights of conscience; and we will depend alone upon the truth of God and the Spirit of God to secure the triumph of Christianity. With an open field and a fair fight, Christianity is more than a match for the world, because “the foolishness of God is wiser than men.” 1 Corinthians 1:25. The almightiness of the Eternal God is in the cross. Hence Christ said: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”—“The Lord’s Day,” pp. 29-31, by D. Read, LL.D.; American Baptist Publication Society, 1420 Chestnut St., Philadelphia.AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.1

If the Baptist papers of the South would join with the Baptist Examiner, of New York and Philadelphia, in maintaining these principles, and in instructing their constituency therein, the persecutions of seventh-day observers in the South would be greatly diminished.AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.2

“Presbyterians, Attention!” American Sentinel 10, 29, p. 228.

ATJ

Dr. Barnes On Enforced Sunday Idleness

THE celebrated Presbyterian theologian, Dr. Albert Barnes, speaks thus of compulsory Sunday idleness. Let Presbyterians and all other thinking men read and ponder:—AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.1

If we can have a sabbath, sacred in its stillness and its associations; maintained by a healthful, popular sentiment, rather than by human laws; revered as a day of holy rest, and as a type of heaven; a day when men shall delight to come together to worship God, and not a day of pastime, Christianity is safe in this land, and our country is safe. If not, the sabbath, and religion, and liberty will die together.... If the sabbath is not regarded as holy time, it will be regarded as pastime; if not a day sacred to devotion, it will be a day of recreation, of pleasure, of licentiousness.AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.2

Since this is to be so, the question is, what is to be the effect if the day ceases to be a day of religious observance? What will be the effect of releasing a population of several millions one-seventh part of the time from any settled business of life? What will be the result if they are brought under no religious instruction? What will be the effect on morals; on religion; on sober habits of industry; on virtue, happiness, and patriotism? Can we safely close our places of business and annihilate all the restraints that bind us during the six days? Can we turn out a vast population of the young with nothing to do, and abide the consequences of such a universal exposure to vice? Can we safely dismiss our young men, all over the land, with sentiments unsettled and with habits of virtue unformed, and throw them one day in seven upon the world with nothing to do? Can we safely release our sons and our apprentices and our clerks from our employ, and send them forth under the influence of unchecked, youthful passions? Can we safely open, as we do, fountains of poison at every corner of the street, and in every village and hamlet, and invite the young to drink there with impunity? Can there be a season of universal relaxation, occurring fifty-two times in a year, when all restraints are withdrawn, and when the power of temptation shall be plied with all that art and skill can do to lead the hosts in the way to ruin, and to drag them down to hell?AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.3

One would suppose that the experiment which has already been made in cities of our land, would be sufficient to remove all doubt from every reasonable mind on this subject. We are making the experiment on a large scale every sabbath. Extensively in our large cities and their vicinities, this is a day of dissipation, of riot, of licentiousness, and of blasphemy. It is probable that more is done to unsettle the habits of virtue, and soberness, and industry; to propagate infidelity, and to lay the foundation for future repentance or ignominy; to retard the progress of the temperance reformation, and to prepare candidates for the penitentiary and the gallows on this day than on all the other days of the week. So it always is where institutions designed for good are abused. They become as powerful in evil as they were intended to be for good. The sabbath is an institution of tremendous power for good or evil. If for good, as it is designed, and as it easily may be, it is laid at the foundation of all our peace, our intelligence, our morals, our religion. If for evil, it strikes at all these; nor is there any possible power in laws or in education that can, during the six days, counteract the evils of a sabbath given to licentiousness and sin. ^{1From Dr. Barnes’ Practical Sermons.}AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.4

It may be answered that a great many voluntarily choose thus to spend Sunday. This is true, but it is also true that the Church and State, if they have not united to compel idleness on that day, are not responsible for the dissipation occasioned by that idleness, but, on the other hand, if the Church and the State have compelled them to be idle when they preferred to engage in honest toil, they become responsible for the crime that idleness produces.AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.5

The Sabbath of the Lord is a spiritual ^{2Romans 7:14.} rest, not merely a day of cessation from work. When God enjoins rest from labor, it is that the time may be employed in spiritual worship. God requires man to cease from his labor on the Sabbath, but he gives to man a spiritual nature, by means of which the cessation from labor is profitably employed. On the other hand the State compels idleness, but does not and cannot give to the idler that spiritual nature which enables him to properly employ the enforced idleness; and therefore, as Satan finds some mischief for idle hands to do, the State, in enforcing idleness on Sunday instead of promoting morality, is in reality fostering immorality as Dr. Barnes here teaches.AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.6

“Methodists Oppose Persecution” American Sentinel 10, 29, p. 228.

ATJ

A SAD feature of the imprisonment of Seventh-day Adventists for inoffensive Sunday labor is that their prosecutors in many cases are members of the Methodist Church, whose founders themselves suffered much from members of State-enforced creeds.AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.1

To show that the persecution of seventh-day observers by Methodists is contrary to the published, standard theology of that church, we quote from that celebrated Methodist work, “Binney’s Theological Compend,” a work officially recommended as a part of every Methodist ministers’ course of reading. The quotation is as follows:—AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.2

It is the duty of the civil power to protect Christians against disturbance in their Sabbath worship. But the power is intruding into the divine prerogative when it assumes the right to compel the subject to worship God, or to refrain from those pursuits that do not disturb others. The keeping of the Sabbath is eminently a moral duty, and hence it must be a voluntary service rendered under the pressure of moral suasion only. ^{1“Binney’s Theological Compend Improved.” By Rev. Amos Binney and Rev. Daniel Steele, D.D. Hunt & Eaton, New York.}AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.3

This is the position which the SENTINEL has always maintained, and it is the position taken by Seventh-day Adventists in their opposition to Sunday laws; and had it been followed by Methodists, much of this modern persecution for conscience’ sake would never have occurred.AMS July 18, 1895, page 228.4

“They Are Partial in the ‘Law’” American Sentinel 10, 29, p. 230.

ATJ

A SIGNIFICANT fact in connection with the so-called enforcement of the Tennessee Sunday “law” is that, with but few exceptions, only observers of the seventh day are prosecuted. At the recent term of the Circuit Court in Rhea County, two men were tried for Sunday work who were not Adventists: but the exceptions—if indeed these cases were exceptions—only prove the rule. One of the two referred to is a young man, the only support of his widowed mother who is an Adventist. The other, though not an Adventist, attended their meetings occasionally and was supposed to be favorable to the doctrines of the Adventists. The prosecution was probably a gentle hint to him that it would be the part of worldly wisdom at least for him to let Adventism alone.AMS July 18, 1895, page 230.1

Probably a score of railroad trains, both freight and passenger, thunder through both Graysville and Dayton every Sunday, “jarring the earth,” as one gentleman in Dayton expressed it, and waking the echoes among the hills; but nobody is disturbed thereby. Sunday railroad trains are not a nuisance in Tennessee.AMS July 18, 1895, page 230.2

The great furnaces of the Dayton Coal and Iron Company are operated every Sunday, employing hundreds of men. The chimneys belch forth their clouds of smoke that can be seen for miles, a black flag, as it were, flaunted in the face of the Tennessee Sunday “law;” but nobody is disturbed; the officers who oaths bind(?) them to prosecute the Adventists, take no heed. They are blind to this patent violation of the “law.” The switch engine used to draw away the huge caldrons of melted, seething slag from the furnaces, operates every Sunday, frequently sounding its shrill whistle as though openly defying the so-called law and its minions: but nobody is disturbed; nobody is prosecuted.AMS July 18, 1895, page 230.3

But it may be said that all this is “necessary” work. This is not true however. It is no more necessary than is any work done for profit. All work is necessary in order that men may live and grow rich; but the work referred to is not necessary in a legal sense. Moreover, much work is done at the furnace on Sunday that could be done just as well on some other day. The writer saw men repairing a furnace, laying brick, etc., on Sunday; but nobody was disturbed, and nobody was prosecuted. Such work in Tennessee is not a nuisance unless done by Adventists.AMS July 18, 1895, page 230.4

Livery stables do business in Dayton on Sunday, and nobody is disturbed; nobody is prosecuted. Drugstores are kept open and sell anything called for, whether necessary or not; but no notice is taken of this violation of the “law” by the men who insist that it is their “sworn duty to enforce the law.”AMS July 18, 1895, page 230.5

Fruit growers pick, pack, and ship fruit on Sunday and are not indicted. The man probably most prominent in the prosecution of the Adventists at the recent term of court in Rhea County, a member of the grand jury that found the indictments and himself the prosecuting witness in at least one case, employed a large force of pickers every Sunday during the strawberry season, paying extra wages upon that day in order to induce people to work for him. But nobody appeared to prosecute him. His work was not a nuisance. But an Adventist saws wood on Sunday, and that is a nuisance. Another sets fence posts and that is so corrupting to public morals that nothing but a penalty of from $30 to $37.50, fine and costs, or ninety days in the county jail can atone for the offense. So tender is the public conscience when Sunday work is done by Adventists that one man is now in Rhea County jail for the heinous offense of taking a wheelbarrow from a wagon on Sunday and setting it over a fence into the yard of the owner, another Adventists. This was absolutely the only offense proved against this man, and for this he must remain in jail about seventy-five days!AMS July 18, 1895, page 230.6

As in the cases of four months ago, it was shown that the work done by the Adventists was not of a character to annoy anybody except as they were annoyed by the mere knowledge that the work was done on the day that they have been taught to regard as the Sabbath. In no case did it appear that there was any noise to distract the minds of the people from pious meditation or to attract public attention. There was no screech of steam whistles, no “jarring of the earth” by the rush of ponderous wheels, no clouds of smoke to attract attention for miles, no sound of escaping steam to annoy the passerby, no soda fountain or cigar stand to attract loafers and induce the spending of money, no attractive livery rigs to tempt the pleasure seeker, no fancy wages offered to induce men who believed they ought to keep Sunday, to work on that day; nothing but quiet, orderly, private work. Yet notwithstanding this fact the “law” holds it to be a nuisance, and the courts declare that they must enforce the “law,” and so the Adventists are in jail while the railroad men, the iron men, the livery-stable men and Sunday fruit pickers are all at liberty. And this is the policy which, according to Judge Parks, is to “compel respect for all law”! But we believe that down in his inmost soul the judge knows that such an administration of so-called law is only a travesty on justice and tends to bring all law into contempt. We believe that such a solemn mockery of justice is exceedingly distasteful to both Judge Parks and Attorney-General Fletcher. We are sure that they have no sympathy with such work and that they act their part in it only from a sense of “duty;” but we fear that such a plea will not avail them in the great and final Judgment. The martyrs of the past all suffered under the forms of civil law; but were their prosecutors and judges not responsible? Yea, verily, and they must meet the dark record before that tribunal in which every man “shall give account of himself to God.”AMS July 18, 1895, page 230.7

“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 29, p. 232.

ATJ

SOME of our readers may wonder how it is that seventh-day observers in Tennessee can be punished so severely when the only statute forbidding Sunday labor provides for a fine of but three dollars, recoverable before a justice of the peace. The explanation lies in the fact that the Supreme Court of the State has decided that a repetition of Sunday work constitutes a “nuisance,” and is indictable. And to carry this judicial legislation further, Judge Parks has decided that “a single act of work done under such circumstances as to amount to a nuisance, is indictable and punishable as such.” The term “such circumstances” is explained by the judge in the next sentence to mean “in such a public manner as to be open to the observation of the public.”AMS July 18, 1895, page 232.1

And now let the hundreds of thousands of men and women throughout this broad land, who read this number of the SENTINEL, remember that a man is in jail, or in the chain-gang, at Dayton, Tenn., for a term of seventy-five days, for the single act of lifting a wheelbarrow from a wagon over a fence into the yard of is brother Adventist on Sunday.AMS July 18, 1895, page 232.2

PROTESTANTS are being persecuted by means of State enactments in several Roman Catholic countries of South America. They have demanded of the pope that these persecuting acts be repealed. The papal Secretary of State answers in substance that these statutes are “civil” enactments, not religious. We are sorry for these persecuted Protestants, and we denounce this “civil” excuse as a mere dodge. However, we expect good will come from it. Many Protestants in America try to dodge the fact that Seventh-day Adventists are persecuted by asserting that Sunday statutes under which they suffer, are “purely civil,” not religious.AMS July 18, 1895, page 232.3

Now the papacy is trying to make these Protestants swallow some of their own medicine. We say to them, Don’t you swallow it. Spit it out. That’s what Seventh-day Adventists are dong with the abominable stuff.AMS July 18, 1895, page 232.4

EIGHT honest, conscientious Seventh-day Adventists of Rhea County, Tenn., have been condemned to serve terms of from seventy-five to ninety days in the county jail at Dayton, Tenn., for the offense of doing common labor on Sunday—labor which disturbed no other person’s private or public devotion. It has also been decided to work these honest men in the chain-gang, and by the time this reaches our readers this will doubtless be accomplished. For an account of the trial and condemnation of these men, see page 229.AMS July 18, 1895, page 232.5

July 11, 1895

July 25, 1895