It is denied by some that the Adventists are persecuted. But persecution has never been called by that name by those who engaged in it—it has always been “ONLY ENFORCING THE LAW.”AMS September 12, 1895, page 281.2

Nor has there, as a general thing, been any attempt to justify persecution avowedly in the interests of religion. In every age and in every country religious intolerance has been defended, to a greater or less extent, on the ground of public policy.AMS September 12, 1895, page 281.3

Dissenters have ever been accused as enemies of the State, subverters of social order, disturbers of the public peace, and violators of the civil law, just as Seventh-day Adventists are to-day stigmatized as anarchists and indicted for acts “against the peace and dignity of the State.”AMS September 12, 1895, page 281.4

Ahab’s wicked accusation, contained in the question to Elijah, “Art thou he that troubleth Israel? ^{11 Kings 18:17.} has been repeated in various forms in every country and in every age, from that time until the present. It was not as a religious dissenter, that Elijah was persecuted, but as a disturber of the peace of the kingdom.AMS September 12, 1895, page 281.5

When Daniel was accused to the king, because he prayed three time a day with his windows open toward Jerusalem, contrary to the royal decree, the accusation was couched in these words: “Daniel, who is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed.” ^{2Daniel 6:13.} And the argument which prevailed with the king, was: “Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth, may be changed.” ^{3Daniel 6:15.} Daniel’s disobedience was held to be utterly subversive of civil order, and so worthy of death.AMS September 12, 1895, page 281.6

The Son of God was also accused as “one that perverteth the people;” ^{4Luke 23:14.} and the prevailing argument with Pilate for his condemnation was, “If thou let this man go, thou art not Cesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cesar.” ^{5John 19:12.} Religious bigotry simply invoked against Christ the penalties of the civil law. He suffered, not as an enemy of religion, but as an enemy of the State. The accusation written over him as he hung upon the cross, was, “The King of the Jews.” ^{6John 19:19.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 281.7

As with their Master, so with the disciples; they also were accused as disturbers of the public peace, as subverters of civil order. At Thessalonica the cry was, “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Cesar.” ^{7Acts 17:7.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 281.8

And at Ephesus the silversmiths raised a tumult because their craft was endangered (Acts 19:27) by the preaching of the apostles. Nor was the danger imaginary; so close was the relation between the prevailing faith and the social and commercial customs of the country, that it was easy to find what appeared to them to be a substantial secular basis for the legal prohibition of the preaching of Christ.AMS September 12, 1895, page 281.9

“There is no new thing under the sun;” ^{8Ecclesiastes 1:9.} and so we find Cardinal Gibbons endeavoring to discover civil reasons for the Inquisition, He says: “The Spanish Inquisition was erected by King Ferdinand, less from motives of religious zeal, than from human policy. It was established, not so much with the view of preserving the Catholic faith, as of perpetuating the integrity of the kingdom.... It was, therefore, rather a royal and political, than an ecclesiastical institution.” ^{9“Faith of Our Fathers,” pp. 292, 293.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 281.10

Coming down a little nearer to our own time, we find one of the historians of New England, attempting to justify the banishment of Roger Williams, upon the ground that he was a disturber of the peace. He says:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.1

In all strictness and honesty he persecuted them—not they him; just as the modern “Come outer,” who persistently intrudes upon some private company, making himself, upon pretense of conscience, a nuisance there; is—if sane—the persecutor, rather than the man who forcibly assists as well as courteously requires, his desired departure. ^{10Dr. Baxter, “As to Roger Williams,” p. 90.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.2

According to Bancroft, the pretext was that Williams was a foe to their civil institutions. He says:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.3

Roger Williams, the apostle of “soul-liberty,” weakened civil independence by impairing its unity; and he was expelled, even though Massachusetts bore good testimony to his spotless virture. ^{11“History of the United States,” Vol. I, p. 319.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.4

Another of the historians of Massachusetts makes an argument similar to that of Dr. Baxter’s. Of the Quakers and their persecutors, he says:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.5

It is to be as frankly and positively affirmed that their Quaker tormentors were the aggressive party; that they wantonly initiated the strife, and with a dogged pertinacity persisted in outrages which drove the authorities almost to frenzy. ^{12Mass. and its early History, p. 104.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.6

It might appear as if good manners, and generosity and magnanimity of spirit, would have kept the Quakers away. Certainly, by every rule of right and reason, they ought to have kept away. They had no rights or business here.... Most clearly they courted persecution, suffering, and death; and, as the magistrates affirmed, “they rushed upon the sword.” Those magistrates never intended them harm.... except as they believed that all their successive measures and sharper penalties were positively necessary to secure their jurisdiction from the wildest lawlessness and absolute anarchy. ^{13Idem, p. 110.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.7

Mr. Brooks Adams examines these accusations at length, and shows conclusively from the most authentic records, that the Baptists and Quakers were not as a class guilty of any civil offense, properly so-called. He says:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.8

The early Quakers were enthusiasts, and therefore occasionally spoke and acted extravagantly; they also adopted some offensive customs, the most objectionable of which was wearing the hat. ^{14“Emancipation of Massachusetts,” p. 140.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.9

Mr. Adams shows very clearly that the “annoyance” and “disturbance” attributed to Quakers was due simply to the intolerant feelings of their persecutors.AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.10

These inoffensive people were driven from their homes; were cruelly whipped; were banished from the colony; were hung like murders; and yet the testimony of the historian is, that while they “adopted some offensive customs,” “the most objectionable” was “wearing the hat,” that is, refusing to uncover in the presence of so-called superiors.AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.11

That which made “the wearing of the hat” so offensive in the Quaker, was his reason for doing it. “The Quaker scorned to take off his hat to any of them [rulers or nobles]; he held himself the peer of the proudest peer in Christendom.... Thus the doctrine of George Fox was not only a plebeian form of philosophy, but a prophecy of political changes.... Everywhere in Europe, therefore, the Quakers were exposed to persecution. Their seriousness was called melancholy fanaticism; their boldness, self-will; their frugality, covetousness; their freedom, infidelity; their conscience, rebellion.” ^{15Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I, p. 545.} “They were,” says Bancroft, “hated by the church [the English establishment] and the Presbyterians, by the peers and the king. The codes of that day describe them as “an abominable sect;’ ‘their principles as inconsistent with any kind of government.’” Thus it was the Quaker’s principles, and not his hat, that gave offense, and it was for his principles that he was imprisoned in England and banished from Massachusetts. ^{16Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I, p. 546.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.12

Though banishment was considered one of the milder forms of punishment, it was, when we come to consider the circumstances, barbarously cruel. To the east lay nearly three thousand miles of ocean, and beyond it the persecution from which they had fled; to the west, the trackless wilderness, inhabited by wild beasts and savage men. Banishment meant only too often death, by cold or hunger, or by the hands of savages.AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.13

Among the Quakers, banished from Massachusetts, was a family by the name of Southwick. October 19, 1658, the Southwicks were ordered to depart from the colony before the spring elections, namely, to depart in a New England winter; but having no way of going, except on foot, their cattle having been previously seized and sold to pay fines, and they left well-nigh penniless, they remained in the colony, and the following May, says Mr. Adams, “found them once more in the felon’s dock.” When arraigned, they asked what wrong they had done. The judges answered that they were rebellious for not going as they had been commanded. “The old man and woman piteously pleaded ‘that they had no otherwhere to go,’ nor had they done anything to deserve banishment or death, though?100 (all they had in the world) had been taken from them for meeting together.” ^{17“Emancipation of Massachusetts,” p. 170.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.14

But their plea was of no avail. “The father, mother, and son, were banished under pain of death.” “But their misery was well-nigh done; they perished within a few days of each other, tortured to death by flogging and starvation.”AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.15

Whole columns might be written descriptive of the cruel injustice perpetrated upon inoffensive Baptists and Quakers in New England. The record of fines, imprisonment, whipping, and banishment, and hanging, is a long one; but we spare our readers.AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.16

These details are revolting, and the reader wonders that such things could have taken place. But why regard with horror the dark records of injustice in past centuries, when in our own day similar scenes are enacted. Already fines have been imposed; imprisonment has been endured; innocent men have been driven in chain-gangs; banishment has been indirectly attempted; and whipping and death must soon follow. In scores of cases, it has been heartlessly said of Adventists—“If they do not want to conform to our customs, let them leave the country.” But where shall they go? The New England Baptists and Quakers had the trackless wilderness to which to flee. Roger Williams first found an asylum with the Indians, and subsequently settled in Rhode Island, founding a colony there. But where shall the persecuted Sabbath-keeper go? Were he to flee from the persecutions of civilized, “Christian” men, where are the savages with whom he might find refuge? where the wilderness in which he could plant a colony and make for himself a home?AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.17

Moreover, many of these people, if they were to go out at all, would have to go as our illustration shows the Quakers of New England going, stripped of all earthly possessions except the clothes on their backs. Injustice and oppression are robbing them of their goods, and when finally they are driven out, they will go penniless.AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.18

And yet this is neither China, nor Russia, nor Turkey; it is “free America;” neither are we living in the seventeenth century, but in the closing decade of the nineteenth, surrounded with all the influences of “Christian civilization,” warned by the history of the Dark Ages, and taught by the experience of a century of civil and religious liberty. But our boasted civilization, like Rome, is crumbling under its own magnificence; the light of liberty is going out, extinguished by human selfishness.AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.19

Is there, then, no hope? Yea, verily: God lives, and when his people, weaned from earth by the things that they suffer, cry day and night for deliverance, “he will avenge them speedily.” ^{18Luke 18:8.} “Be patient, therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your years: for the coming of the Lord draweth night.” James 5:7, 8.AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.20

“Worse than Tennessee” American Sentinel 10, 36, pp. 282, 283.

ATJ

FROM clippings that have been sent us from the daily papers of Chatham, Ont., where Mr. John Matthews, a Seventh-day Adventist, is in jail for having regarded Sunday as a working day, in obedience to the fourth commandment, it seems likely that “Protestant” Ontario will soon make a record of persecution for conscience’ sake, which will surpass any that has yet been made in Tennessee. A reporter of the Chatham Daily Planet publishes an interview which he had with the prisoner and with some of the officials concerned in the case, of which the following is a part:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.1

The prisoner takes the thing coolly enough. He thinks he’s a martyr—says such fellows as he have to endure persecution and all that sort of thing. “I suppose I’ll have to spend most of my days in jail, now,” said the man to me. “Oh, I don’t know about that,” I answered. “The next time you’ll probably get Central Prison, instead of jail; and I tell you what, my Christian friend, a month of the Central will sicken you.”AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.2

“Will you put him at hard labor?” was asked the governor. “If there is any work to be done he’ll have to take his turn with the rest,” replied Mr. Mercer.AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.3

“Suppose he won’t work on Saturday?”AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.4

“Well, he’ll get into trouble, that’s all. If he were at the Central and refused to work, they’d give him the cat.”AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.5

In no other case that has yet arisen has it been announced, as it is here, that the imprisoned Adventist would be compelled to work on the Sabbath. In Tennessee and elsewhere in the United States, they have been allowed to observe the day set apart by the fourth commandment by refraining from work, in harmony with the dictates of their consciences. But in this case, should there be opportunity for its realization, the plainly-implied purpose is to compel the prisoner, if possible, to violate his conscience and work on the day set apart by his religion as sacred, by an application of the lash! This is the kind of religious freedom which is to-day allowed a good and upright citizen of the highly-civilized province of Ontario.AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.6

In addition to this, if the published report be true, Governor Mercer has taken upon himself to decide that the pastor of the church to which the prisoner belongs, Mr. A. O. Burrill, is not an ordained minister of the gospel: that is, that the ordination conferred upon Pastor Burrill, in accordance with the usage of the denomination to which he belongs, is not genuine ordination! Hence, the report says, the governor is in doubt as to how far Pastor Burrill should be indulged in the privilege granted to ordained ministers, of visiting people in prison.AMS September 12, 1895, page 282.7

And all this occurs in a section of country where religious intolerance cannot be charged to political animosity, race prejudice, or any of those causes which some Northern journals, in commenting upon the persecutions in the South, have alleged as the underlying reasons therefore. The one cause of it all is the spirit of religious intolerance which is fast taking possession of people in all sections of the country, and not only here, but in the most civilized lands elsewhere.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.1

“Roger Williams and Sunday Statutes” American Sentinel 10, 36, p. 283.

ATJ

JULY 18, Mr. A. F. Ballenger, of this city, addressed a letter to Mr. Sydney S. Rider, editor of Book Notes, Providence, R. I., and secretary of the Rhode Island Historical Society, making the following inquiry:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.1

Can you direct me to some work which will inform me as to how early Sunday laws were enacted in Rhode Island? It is very evident that Roger Williams denied the right of the civil magistrate to “punish a breach of the Sabbath,” and it therefore becomes an interesting question as to how early such laws were enacted in his colony.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.2

In Book Notes, for July 27, Mr. Rider responded at some length, stating that the first Sunday law in Rhode Island bears date of Sept. 2, 1673—ten years before the death of Mr. Williams. This statute simply prohibited gambling and drunkenness upon the first day of the week. In 1679 it was extended somewhat, being amended so as to impose a fine “upon such evil-minded men as did” “require their own servants to labor upon the first day of the week, and hired the servants of other men for the same purpose.”AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.3

In 1719, forty-six years after the death of Roger Williams, this law was again amended to read—“No person within this colony shall do, or exercise any labor or business or work of their ordinary calling, nor use any game, sport, play, or recreation on the first day of the week, under penalty,” etc.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.4

Mr. Rider says the fact that Mr. Williams held that “the magistrate ought not to punish the breach of the first table, otherwise than in such case as did disturb the civil peace,” did “not mean that Williams denied the power of the civil magistrate to punish a breach of the Sabbath.” We think that Mr. Rider errs in this. Henry S. Burrage, D. D., introduces this matter incidentally in his “History of the Baptists in New England.” ^{1Published by American Baptist Publication Society, 1420 Chestnut St., Philadelphia.} Speaking of Roger Williams, he says:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.5

The church in Salem then called him, as the successor of Mr. Higginson, who, on account of feeble health, was compelled to retire from active service. The Salem Church was the oldest church in the colony, having been organized August 6, 1629, “on principles of perfect and entire independence of every other ecclesiastical body.” The civil authorities in Boston protested against this action of the church in Salem: “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 the breach of the Sabbath, nor any other offense that was a breach of the first table: therefore, they marveled they would choose him without advising with the council; and withal desiring that they would forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.” ^{2The authority which Mr. Burrage cites, is—“History of Plymouth Plantatioin.” Coll. Of Mass. Hist. Soc. Vol. III., p. 319.} Pages 14-15.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.6

This makes it positively certain that this was at least understood to be Roger Williams’ position upon this question at that time, and it ought to set the matter quite fully at rest.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.7

The “Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,” article, “Roger Wiillams [sic.],” says:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.8

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 considered] a breach of the first table [first four commandments] of the Decalogue.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.9

It was for this opinion that Mr. Williams was banished from Massachusetts, as will appear from the following further quotation from the “Schaff-Herzog,” as follows:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.10

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 his 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 persons 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.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.11

The “American Cyclopedia,” article, “Roger Williams,” speaking of the proposed settlement of Mr. Williams as assistant pastor to the congregation at Salem, says:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.12

A remonstrance from the General Court against his settlement was immediately transmitted to Salem, in which it was complained that he 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 this, “had declared his opinion that the magistrate might not punish a breach of the Sabbath, nor any other offense, as it was [perhaps considered as] a breach of the first table.”AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.13

These authorities seem to leave no question as to the attitude of Roger Williams toward laws designed for the protection of the day; and this view is not materially affected by the fact that a law was enacted in Rhode Island, prohibiting drunkenness and gambling, and the employment of servants upon Sunday. For it was not until forty-six years after the death of Mr. Williams that ordinary labor on Sunday was prohibited, so that it is certain that Roger Williams was not in favor of such Sunday laws as are upon the statute books of most countries to-day.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.14

“Securing the Sabbath” American Sentinel 10, 36, pp. 283, 284.

ATJ

THE Scriptures tell us that “the Sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27); that is was made by the Lord when he had finished the work of creation (Genesis 2:2, 3), and that it was given by him to man to be a sign between him and those who would honor him by its observance. Ezekiel 20:12, 20.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.1

The observance of the Sabbath is commanded by the law of God, which speaks to all the world. When God spoke his law from Mount Sinai, his voice shook the world (Hebrews 12:26); and we read of that law that “what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” The law must therefore be of universal application.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.2

It is the will of God that all men should keep his Sabbath. Not to keep it would be a transgression of his law, and a sin; for “sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. And as surely as God is Sovereign of the universe, it is never necessary that any man should do a thing that is contrary to His will. It is never a necessity that any should die. It is certain, therefore, that it is possible for every person to keep the Sabbath. Everyone can secure its rest and its blessings every week, in the year if he wills to do so.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.3

Whether other men keep the Sabbath or not, makes no difference with his own privilege and responsibility in the matter. God made the Sabbath for every person, individually, and it is for each one to accept and observe it, without reference to the course of others. No person can excuse his own wrong-doing by pleading the wrong-doing of his neighbors.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.4

No human law, therefore, can have any place in securing to any person the privilege of keeping the Sabbath. No human law can enforce an obligation that is due to God. Divine obligations were not left to be enforced in that way. God ha snot forbidden sin under penalty of eternal death, and yet left men to secure righteousness by so weak and uncertain a thing as human law.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.5

God has secured righteousness in Sabbath-keeping and in every other requirement of his law, by something infinitely stronger and better than any human enactment, and that is, the power of his own word. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” Psalm 33:6. By that power which created man in the beginning, he is created anew in Christ, or made righteous. And of this creative power the Sabbath is the weekly reminder.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.6

But it may be said, Ought there not to be a Sabbath law for the benefit of weak-kneed persons who would like to keep the Sabbath, but fear it might go hard with them if they should try it? Ought not places of business to be closed on the Sabbath in order the men may keep it without risking the loss of money or of position? So it may seem to some people; but there is no real support for Sabbath laws in considerations of this kind. No moral strength can be derived through a human law. The person who would like to do right but does not do so for fear of the consequences, is in need of a different aid than any that can be supplied him by human enactments. What he needs if faith, and faith is not a thing of human manufacture; it is the gift of God. And the history of God’s people in all ages shows that faith is able to sustain a person in following his convictions of right, not only without the support of any human law, but in the face of adverse laws and of popular sentiment and custom. (See Hebrews 11.)AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.7

He who has God’s support in his course of life, cannot reasonably ask for any other support. He whose god cannot support him in right doing so as to crown the same with success, would better set aside his god at once. That is not the true God,—the Lord of the Sabbath. And if God will care for a person while he is doing wrong—disregarding the divine command—he will certainly do as much for that person when he turns from his wrong-doing and walks in the pathway of obedience.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.8

Let no one image, then, that some human legislation is necessary in order that people may be able to do right. The greatest obstacle to right-doing is the opposition of the devil, working through the natural evil tendencies of every individual heart. And this, with all lesser obstacles, is overcome by the power of the grace of God.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.9

Then if any person wants to keep the Sabbath, let him to so, without clamoring for legislation to clear his pathway of real or imaginary obstacles. God has legislated upon Sabbath observance in his own law, and there is no question but that he has covered the subject fully. His word, which is his law, covers every duty of man which can pertain to things religious, and leaves no room for human legislation in the matter; and when men do legislate in such a case, their work cannot be other than superfluous and mischievous.AMS September 12, 1895, page 283.10

This is the trouble with legislation touching the divine institution of the Sabbath. God has marked out the duty and the privilege of all men with regard to a weekly day of rest, and there is nothing that need be added to his words. They indicate the best and wisest course for every man that it is possible to take. The Sabbath was made for man. It is exactly adapted to his nature and his wants. That men should rest on the seventh day, making the other six days of the week working days, as God’s law directs, is just what is suited to their highest welfare. And that is every man’s duty before God.AMS September 12, 1895, page 284.1

It is not surprising, therefore, that human legislation upon the Sabbath institution, or which touches any of those obligations covered by the Sabbath, fails, as it does, to work satisfactorily. It can never succeed in accomplishing the end sought, for no human project can successfully invade the realm of the purpose and wisdom of God.AMS September 12, 1895, page 284.2

“The Catholics See It” American Sentinel 10, 36, p. 284.

ATJ

PROTESTANTISM stands silent before Rome. The former must either disavow what has been done in her name, or surrender to Rome the fortress of consistency, without which successful warfare cannot be waged.AMS September 12, 1895, page 284.1

When Protestantism—as represented by the vast majority who disavow allegiance to Rome—would lift her voice against Romish tradition and in favor of the Bible only as the rule of faith, Rome has but to ask, Why, then, do you keep Sunday? And there being no Scripture in support of it, they can give Rome no reasonable reply.AMS September 12, 1895, page 284.2

And now Rome asks another question. Certain prominent Protestants in America have been complaining because their brethren in the faith in Ecuador and some other Catholic countries of South America were oppressed on account of their religion. They made this complaint to the highest Roman Catholic official here, and through him to the pope, asking that the latter exercise his sovereign authority to secure for those Protestants religious freedom. Of course, the pope—if the petition ever came before him—easily found a way to disclaim any responsibility in the matter, and the credulous Protestants who expected him to raise his voice against the long-standing policy and practice of the papacy, in every country where she has ruled, obtained no definite reply. But this was not the end of it. The Pilot (Boston), the leading Catholic journal of New England, in its issue of August 10, takes up the subject and speaks as follows:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 284.3

The Pilot is most assuredly in favor of religious freedom everywhere.... It is against intolerance in every form and every country; and if Mr. Lee [chairman of the committee that petitioned the pope] and his co-workers will extend their crusade so as to cover religious proscription in every latitude and longitude, they will find no more zealous supporter than the Pilot. But what about a country called the United States of America, where Jews and Seventh-day Baptists are punished by fine and imprisonment at hard labor, even in the chain-gang, if they do not keep holy a day which their Bible and their religion tells them is not to be so honored? We have not much admiration for the second of these classes; for, in truth they are the narrowest of all the narrow bigots we know; but that does not affect their right to religious liberty; and the beauty of their case is that it is not necessary to ask an American cardinal to ask an Italian cardinal to ask the pope of Rome to ask the president of a foreign republic to rectify the wrong. All that Mr. Lee and his brethren have to do is to ask the Congress of our own United States to enforce that clause of the Constitution which forbids any discrimination against religious liberty.AMS September 12, 1895, page 284.4

What will Protestants of the United States say to this? Will they disavow and condemn the evil thing and use their influence to have it stopped? If so, what means the ever-increasing agitation in Protestant circles everywhere for the passing and enforcing of Sunday laws? But if they do not, they will be their silence justify the papacy in every step of her long, dark career of oppression for conscience’ sake.AMS September 12, 1895, page 284.5

“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 36, p. 288.

ATJ

THE Seventh-day Adventists, recently in the chain-gang in Rhea County, Tenn., have been released. They were not required by the authorities to work upon the Sabbath, but were required to work an additional number of days for the “privilege” of resting upon the Sabbath as required by the divine commandment. The officials were magnanimous(?) and did not exact the full pound of flesh; they “gave” them from one to three days each, because, as they said, the Adventists had been good hands, and had given them no trouble.AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.1

But the release of these men in no wise affects the question at issue; the fact remains that they were unjustly deprived of their liberty, and that the State of Tennessee still claims the right to impose upon them the observance of the so-called sabbath under penalty of further imprisonment.AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.2

THE law of God is spiritual. The Saviour, in his sermon on the mount, showed that the sixth and seventh commandments could be broken even by an evil desire. And the Sabbath commandment, like the others, requires more than a conformity in outward acts. It requires that we should not seek our own pleasure on the Sabbath day, or speak our own words, but should make it a day of spiritual delight. See Isaiah 58:13, 14. And no one can do this without being spiritually-minded. Hence it is utterly impossible for any human sabbath law to help any person to keep the Sabbath; and all the legislation that might be passed on earth, though enforced as strictly as ever human law was enforced, could not save the nation from being a nation of Sabbath-breakers in the eye of God.AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.3

THE World, of August 26, had the two following items of news, which serve to illustrate the wickedness of the statute which makes an act, otherwise commendable, a crime, simply because it is done on Sunday:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.4

Of the Sunday-law arrests the most interesting was that of Thomas Doughlin, of No. 1763 Third Avenue. He was selling ice, and a policeman saw him sell five cents’ worth to a girl from a tenement-house. There used to be an order that the selling of ice was a work of necessity, but City Magistrate Simms, of the Harlem Police Court, held him for trial.AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.5

Another case was that of Cassel Goldman, clerk, in No. 17 Canal Street. He sold a policeman three cents’ worth of writing paper. The place is a cigar shop as well as a stationer’s, and the policeman, whose memorable name is Grimshaw, came in and said: “I want to write a letter. Won’t you accommodate me with a piece of paper?” City Magistrate Denel held Goldman for trial.AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.6

It is difficult to properly characterize these arrests. It is astonishing that officers would make arrests under such circumstances, and still more astonishing that a police magistrate would hold a man for trial, arrested for selling ice. Bad as the Sunday law of New York is, it permits works of necessity and charity, and defines necessity as being “whatever is necessary for the health, comfort, or well-being of the people.” It is evident, however, that nothing is to be permitted to stand in the way of a rigid enforcement of the Sunday law.AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.7

The other case, while not having in it the same elements of barbarous cruelty, as in the circumstances attending the arrest of the ice-man, presents a sad commentary on the morals which are fostered by Sunday legislation. The sale of manufactured tobacco is legal in New York State on Sunday, therefore it was not a violation of the law for the clerk to sell cigars on that day, and it was doubtless for that purpose that the shop was open. The policeman who made the arrest, did not find the clerk selling other articles, nor did he induce him to violate the law simply by proposing to buy stationery from him, but professing that he wanted to write a letter, asks simply as an accommodation that he might be supplied with the necessary material; and for doing this favor the clerk was arrested. The first impulse is to blame the officer and to feel that society is unsafe in the guardianship of such men; but the fault is primarily with the “law” which makes an act otherwise commendable a crime because it is done upon Sunday. Sunday laws, instead of promoting morality, foster immorality.AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.8

THE plea that the imprisonment of men under the Sunday statutes of the various States is not religious persecution because “Sunday laws are civil enactments,” can be honestly made only by those ignorant of history. With the exception of isolated cases of individual and mob violence, no martyr ever suffered except for violation of civil law. Of the Puritan regimé in Massachusetts, Bancroft says: “Since a particular form of worship had become a part of the civil establishment, irreligion was a civil offense.” ^{1History of the United States, Vol. I., pp. 312, 313.}AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.9

Very much of the intolerance of the Puritans was “justified” on civil grounds. Of the banishment of certain offenders from the territory of Massachusetts, Bancroft says:—AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.10

The government feared, or pretended to fear, a disturbance of the public peace.... The triumph of the clergy being complete, the civil magistrates proceeded to pass sentence on the most resolute offenders. Wheelwright, Anne Hutchinson and Aspinwall were exiled from the territory of Massachusetts.AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.11

Religious intolerance has always masqueraded as the conservator of civil order.AMS September 12, 1895, page 288.12

September 5, 1895

September 19, 1895