LET none misunderstand the position of THE AMERICAN SENTINEL; it is that while men have been, and still are, required to yield something to the majority in matters of religion, yet no such requirement ever has been, or ever can be, just. Religious belief is a matter which properly rests solely with the individual. Religion pertains to man’s relationship to God, and is the man’s personal relationship of faith and obedience, of belief and observance, toward God. Every man has therefore the personal, individual, and inalienable right to believe for himself in religious things.AMS July 21, 1892, page 217.1

AND this right of the individual to believe for himself in religious things, carries with it the same personal, individual and inalienable right to dissent from any and every other phase of religious belief that is held by anybody on earth. This right is recognized and declared by Jesus Christ, not only in the words in which he has commanded every man to render to God that which is God’s, while rendering to Cesar that which is Cesar’s, but likewise in the following words: “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not, for I cam not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”AMS July 21, 1892, page 217.2

THE word which Christ spoke was the word of God. The one who is to judge, therefore, is God; and in the last day he will judge every man for the way in which he has acted. To this judgment the Lord Jesus refers every man who refuses to believe and rejects his words. If any man hears Christ’s words and believes not, but rejects him and his words, Christ condemns him not, judges him not; but leaves him to the Judge of all, who will render to every man according to his deeds, in the last day.AMS July 21, 1892, page 217.3

In these words, the Author of Christianity, the Saviour of the world, has clearly recognized and declared the right of every man to dissent from every religion known to mankind; and even the religion of Christ itself, being responsible only to God for the exercise of that right. He wants every man to believe and be saved; but he will compel none. Christ leaves every man free to receive or reject, to assent or dissent, to believe or disbelieve, just as he chooses; his responsibility is to God alone, and it is the individual who must answer for himself in the last day. “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Romans 14:12.AMS July 21, 1892, page 217.4

WHOEVER therefore presumes to exercise jurisdiction over the religious belief or observances of any man, or would compel any man to conform to the precepts of any religion, or to comply with the ceremonies of any religious body, or would condemn any man for not believing or complying—whoever would presume to do any such thing, puts himself above Jesus Christ, and usurps the place and prerogative of God, the Judge of all.AMS July 21, 1892, page 217.5

SUCH is the doctrine of the free exercise of religion, as announced by Jesus Christ himself. And such is the doctrine upon this point that will ever be held by every one who respects that glorious Being. Thus is declared and established by the Author of all true religion, the inalienable, the divine, right of dissent. And such is the divine right of the freedom of religious belief.AMS July 21, 1892, page 217.6

NOR is this all in this connection. The founders of the Government of the United States recognized this divine right as such, and established the exercise of it as an inalienable civil right, “by refusing to treat faith as a matter of government, or as having a headship in a monarch or a State;” by excluding all religious tests; and by forbidding Congress ever to make “any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In short, by prohibiting the law-making power from making any law whatever upon the subject of religion.AMS July 21, 1892, page 217.7

THE people of Tennessee following this example of the makers of the national Government established in that State that divine right, as also an inalienable civil right, by declaring in the Constitution of the State that “no human power can in any case whatever control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship.” But the courts of the State have nullified that provision and declare that by the laws of that State the conscientious observer of the seventh day is a nuisance if he quietly labors on Sunday, and thus outrages the religious feeling or prejudice of his neighbors.AMS July 21, 1892, page 217.8

“Some Scraps of Early New England History” The American Sentinel 7, 28, p. 218.

ATJ

(Condensed from “Two Republics.”

THE early history of New England is the history of the Puritans, whose rise was on this wise: To escape the persecutions by Mary, in her attempt to restore Catholicism as the religion of England, many members of the Church of England fled to Germany. The worship of these while in exile was conducted by some with the rites of the Church of England as established under Edward VI, while others adopted the Swiss or Calvinistic form of worship. This caused a division, and much contention between them. “The chief scene of these disturbances was Frankfort.” Those who maintained the English form of worship were called Conformists, and those who advocated Calvinistic forms, were called Non-Conformists. The contentions finally grew so bitter that the Conformists drove the Non-Conformists out of the city.AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.1

At the accession of Elizabeth, November, 1558, the exiles returned to England carrying their differences with them. There the Non-Conformists acquired the nick-name of “Puritans.” They were not only not separate from the Church of England, but it was not the purpose of the Puritans to separate from either the church, or the government, of England. It was their set purpose to remain in, and a part of, both, to “reform” both, and create and establish instead a Puritan Church of England, and a Puritan government of England.AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.2

As Elizabeth saw that the Puritan party was rapidly growing, she thought to check it by enforcing uniformity according to the established usage. Elizabeth zealously supported, if not led, by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his subjects, exerted all her power to crush the Puritans. And though the persecution was cruel, they bore it all with patience; first, because every effort that was made to crush them only multiplied their fame and influence a hundred-fold, and, second, because they lived in strong hope of better days, when James of Scotland should come to the throne.AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.3

James, though a Presbyterian, continued the war which Elizabeth had already waged against the Puritans and Congregationalists. They were so persecuted and abused by all classes, as well as by the officers of the law, that in 1608, they fled to Holland, stopping first at Amsterdam to Holland, stopping first at Amsterdam, and afterward going to Leyden in 1609. From there a company of these Pilgrims, sailed and landed at Plymouth, New England, in 1620.AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.4

The success of this venture suggested to the Puritans a new scheme. Was not here an opportunity to establish a complete and unabridged Puritan government? And was not the way fully opened, and the opportunity easy to be improved? Enough! They would do it. A company was formed, a grant of land was obtained, and John Endicott, with a company of sixty, was sent over in 1628. They joined a fishing settlement at the place afterward called Salem on Massachusetts Bay.AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.5

In 1629 a royal charter was obtained, creating “The Government and Colony of Massachusetts Bay in New England;” and four hundred and six people, led by Francis Higginson, were sent over, and Endicott became governor of the whole colony.AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.6

A Puritan or Calvinistic government was at once established and put into working order. A church was immediately organized according to the Congregational form, with Higginson and Samuel Skelton as the ministers. All, however, were not inclined to Puritanism. Two persons of the former company at Salem, John and Samuel Browne, took the lead in worshiping according to their own wish, conducting their service after the Episcopal order, using the book of common prayer. Their worship was forbidden. The Brownes replied, “You are Separatists, and you will shortly be Anabaptists.” The Puritans answered, “We separate, not from the Church of England, but from its corruptions. We came away from the common prayer and ceremonies, in our native land, where we suffered much for non-conformity; in this place of liberty we cannot, we will not, use them. Their imposition would be a sinful violation of the worship of God.” In return the Brownes were rebuked as Separatists; their defense was pronounced sedition; their worship was declared mutiny; and they were sent back to England as “factious and evil-conditioned men,” Endicott declaring that “New England was no place for such as they.”AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.7

Higginson died in the winter of 1629-30. In 1630 there came over another company led by John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley, who were the governor and deputy-governor to succeed Endicott. “Their embarkation in 1630 was the signal of a general movement on the part of the English Puritans. Before Christmas of that year seventeen ships had come to New England, bringing more than one thousand passengers.” Dudley’s views of toleration and liberty of conscience are expressed in the following lines, which he wrote:—AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.8

Let men of God in courts and churches watchAMS July 21, 1892, page 218.9

O’er such as do a toleration hatch,AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.10

Lest that ill egg bring forth a cockatriceAMS July 21, 1892, page 218.11

To poison all with heresy and vice.AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.12

And Winthrop’s estimate of the preachers is seen in his declaration that “I honored a faithful minister in my heart, and could have kissed his feet.” It was therefore not at all strange that under the government of Winthrop and Dudley in 1631, the following law should be enacted:—AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.13

To the end this body of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men, it is ordered and agreed that, for the time to come, no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of the same.AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.14

“Thus the polity became a theocracy; God himself was to govern his people; and the ‘saints by calling,’ ... were, by the fundamental law of the colony, constituted the oracle of the divine will.... Other States have confined political rights to the opulent, to free-holders, to the first-born; the Calvinists of Massachusetts, refusing any share of civil power to the clergy, established the reign of the visible church, a commonwealth of the chosen people in covenant with God.”AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.15

This was the Calvinistic system precisely. The preachers were not to hold office in itself, but they were to be the rulers of all who did. For, as no man could be a citizen unless he was a member of the church; and as none could become members of the churches or even “propounded to the congregation, except they be first allowed by the elders;” this was to make the preachers supreme. This is exactly the position they occupied. They were consulted in everything, and everything must be subject to their dictation.AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.16

How these Puritans, who had themselves fled from persecution in Europe, further used the power that they acquired in Massachusetts, will have to be told in subsequent numbers of THE SENTINEL.AMS July 21, 1892, page 218.17

“Note” The American Sentinel 7, 28, p. 222.

ATJ

STRANGE as it may seem, according to the decisions of the District and Supreme Courts of Tennessee and of Judge Hammond, of the United States Court, there is in Tennessee to-day, no constitutional guarantee of any freedom of religious belief beyond that which was allowed in New England two hundred and fifty years ago.AMS July 21, 1892, page 222.1

In sustaining the decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Judge Hammond said:—AMS July 21, 1892, page 222.2

Sectarian religious belief is guaranteed by the Constitution, not in the sense argued here, that King, as a Seventh-day Adventist, or some other as a Jew, or yet another, as a Seventh-day Baptist, might set at defiance the prejudices, if you please, of other sects having control of legislation in the matter of Sunday observance; but only in the sense that he himself should not be disturbed in the practices of his creed; which is quite a different thing from saying that in the course of his daily labor ... he might disregard laws made in aid, if you choose to say so, of the religion of other sects.AMS July 21, 1892, page 222.3

The Judge’s meaning, is made clear by a further extract, as follows:—AMS July 21, 1892, page 222.4

If a non-conformist of any kind should enter the church of another sect, and those assembled there, were required, every one of them, to comply with a certain ceremony, he could not discourteously refuse, because his mode was different, or because he did not believe in the divine sanction of that ceremony, and rely upon this constitutional guarantee to protect his refusal.AMS July 21, 1892, page 222.5

This is precisely the measure of freedom of religious belief that was “guaranteed” or allowed under the Puritan theocracy of New England. The Congregational Church had control of legislature. It embodied Congregationalist doctrines in the law, and required every one to conform to the Congregational mode of worship. Every one was required to go to church. And some who did not go were forcibly taken to the church. The Baptists and Quakers did not believe in the divine sanction of the ceremonies of the established religion. They therefore refused to comply. Their refusal, of course, was counted “discourteous.” This discourtesy was a violation of the law, and they were fined; but they refused either to pay the fines, or to comply with the required ceremonies. They were then whipped; still they refused. They were then banished, and yet they refused; and the Quakers even refused to be banished. Then they were hanged; and yet those who still lived would not comply with the required ceremonies. And they had no constitutional guarantee to protect them in their refusal.AMS July 21, 1892, page 222.6

And now says Judge Hammond, in Tennessee, “If a non-conformist of any kind refuses to comply with a certain ceremony required of every one by another sect which has control of legislation, there is no constitutional guarantee to protect his refusal.” And the persecution of the Seventh-day Adventists in that State under the forms of civil law demonstrates that it is even so.AMS July 21, 1892, page 222.7

June 30, 1892

July 28, 1892