MULTITUDES of people in the United States are wondering and perplexed in beholding how widespread and how persistent is the spirit of violence and lawlessness throughout the land.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.1

TO those, however, who have been carefully considering public movements in the last two or three years, there is nothing to wonder at nor to be perplexed about in all this, or even more than this, that has appeared.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.2

INDEED, to those who have been carefully studying the public movements of the last two or three years, this widespread spirit of violence and lawlessness has been expected; and now, instead of expecting it to end at the limits that it has reached, widespread though it be, it is expected to become universal.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.3

AMS a matter of fact, in these two or three years just passed, the Government of the United States has been surrendered to the principles of violence and lawlessness. This being so, it is not at all to be wondered at that violence and lawlessness should prevail almost constantly throughout the land and should become universal. Instead of being anything strange, it is the most natural thing in the world.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.4

LET us recite the facts in the case: From 1888 till 1892 the combined churches, Prohibition party, and Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, tried their best to get Congress and the whole Government of the United States to do what the leaders of the combination knew to be an unconstitutional thing, and which, being done, they have again declared to be unconstitutional; that is, to espouse the Sunday-Sabbath cause. As Congress did not respond readily enough to suit them, they added threats to their “petitions” and their former efforts. These threats of the combined “Protestant” religious element of the country, were to the effect that they pledged themselves and each other that they would never again vote for or support for any office or position of trust any member of Congress, either senator or representative, who should refuse to do their bidding to pass the church-instituted provision closing the Columbian Exposition on Sunday—the “Christian Sabbath,” the “Lord’s Day,” etc.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.5

EVERYBODY knows, or at least has had a chance to know, that Congress surrendered to these threats and publicly advertised that it did not “dare” to do otherwise. And when an effort, based upon the Constitution, was made to have Congress undo its unconstitutional action and place itself and the Government once more in harmony with the Constitution, this same religious combination renewed their former threats and added to these such others as suited their purpose best. The result was that the congressional committee that had the matter in charge, and that thus acted for the whole Congress, definitely excluded the Constitution from its consideration and deferred exclusively to the demands of that religious combination. And we have the words of two of the committee to the effect that this was done because this church combine would do more mischief and damage to the Exposition if they did not have their own way than they or anybody else would if they did have their own willful, threatening way. These words are worth setting down again. Here is the statement of Representative Reilly:—AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.6

The present agitation, if continued, can only result in injury to the Fair. Attempts to have the law repealed only result in stirring up animosity toward the Fair and creating antagonism on the part of the church people. they can do the Fair much harm if they decide to carry out the threats they have already made, and I think the friends of the Exposition who favor Sunday opening would act wisely in ceasing their efforts.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.7

And Representative George W. Houk wrote a letter on this subject to President Higinbotham, of the Exposition, which was printed in the Chicago Tribune, February 5, 1893. After stating his “deliberate conviction that Congress was and is without any constitutional power or authority whatever to impose such a condition upon the grant of the appropriation,” he states the case thus:—AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.8

From the nature, extent and character of the opposition, based as I think it is, upon an erroneous though conscientious sentiment, rather than upon a deliberate and rational judgment, it occurs to me that in case it were possible to have the existing law repealed, it might after all ultimately result in serious detriment to the final success of the Exposition.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.9

It is of the first importance, in my judgment, to the final success of the Exposition that there should be a harmonious coöperation on the part of all the people of the United States in its support. If the present law requiring the gates to be closed on Sundays to the public, should be repeated by a vote of a majority in both the House and Senate, which does not seem to me at all probable, and the act should receive the sanction of the President, which seems to be equally improbable, it is certain that the religious element of the country, through all its organizations, would be deeply offended and would array itself in antagonism to the Fair.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.10

It is not a question whether such a course would be reasonable or not; and, while such action might be regarded as an exhibition of religious fanaticism, most remarkable under the circumstances, it is nevertheless true that a large number of good, conscientious, Christian people throughout the country, in their excited state of feeling upon this question, would be likely to pursue that course.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.11

I am in a position to have reliable information in regard to this matter, and although I firmly believe that the refusal to permit the Exposition to be opened to the public Sundays under the regulations I have suggested, will be a most deplorable mistake, I am also fully persuaded that the repeal of the existing law closing its gates would array the whole religious element of the United States (Protestant at least) against it.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.12

The question now to be decided by the management is, whether it is advisable further to urge a doubtful contest, upon a matter that is aggravating an already extensive and bitter hostility against Chicago and the Exposition, which even if ultimately successful, would be as likely to be fraught with disaster as benefit to the enterprise.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.13

Now, the Constitution of the United States is the only thing in existence that gives to any member of Congress, either senator or representative, any power or authority. He owes his very existence, as a member of that body, to the Constitution. The Constitution defines his powers and sets the limitations of the exercise thereof. This is his only legitimate guide. To take any other thing as his guide in legislation is to repudiate the Constitution and to put that other thing in its place, and is to rob the people of all the governmental authority which, by the very idea of a written constitution, they have retained in their own hands, and is to make this other thing the governing power instead of the people. In this case that other thing was the combined churches of the country threatening political ruin and the boycott, if their will was not conformed to in the doing of a confessedly unconstitutional thing. This, therefore, was only to recognize the principle that the caprice and arbitrary will of a clamorous and threatening few shall be the guide in legislation and governmental affairs, intead [sic.] of the deliberate judgment of the majority as expressed in the Constitution.AMS August 9, 1894, page 249.14

NOR is it in Congress alone that this principle has been recognized. It has been given a place in the judicial procedure of the United States courts. In 1891, the United States Circuit Court for the western district of Tennessee, in giving legal sanction to the practice of persecution to secure the recognition of Sunday, said:—AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.1

By a sort of factitious advantage, the observers of Sunday have secured the aid of the civil law, and adhere to that advantage with greatest tenacity, in spite of the clamor for religious freedom and the progress that has been made in the absolute separation of Church and State.... And the efforts to extirpate the advantage above-mentioned, by judicial decision in favor of a civil right to disregard the change, seem to me quite useless.AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.2

The court was composed of Circuit Judge Howell E. Jackson, now a member of the Supreme Court of the United States, and District Judge E. S. Hammond. The opinion was written by Judge Hammon, and was filed August 1, 1891. Then in the Memphis Appeal-Avalanche of August 30, there was published a four-column article by Judge Hammond, dated August 12, and entitled “The Sunday Habit,” which is little if anything else than a defense of the decision that had been rendered on this subject August 1. In this article the Judge confesses that “the logic of this [his] position may lead to a union of Church and State undoubtedly;” but that the support of Sunday by the civil power, and by persecution, “is a necessity of statesmanship” upon “the policy of securing the public peace.” The danger to the public peace, and the source of it, if Sunday laws were disregarded by those who have a “distaste for, or a disbelief in, the custom;” of it they were attacked by a proposal to abolish them, is set forth as follows:—AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.3

We have lived so free of it in modern days that we forget the force of religious fanaticism, and he who supposes that its furty cannot be gain aroused may be mistaken....AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.4

Christians would become alarmed, and they might substitute for the stars and other symbols of civil freedom upon the banners of their armed hosts, the symbol of the cross of Christ, and fight for their religion at the expense of their civil government. They have done this in times that are passed, and they could do it again. And he is not a wise statesman who overlooks a possibility like this, and endangers the public peace....AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.5

The civilian, as contradistinguished from the churchman, though united in the same person, may find in the principle of preserving the public order a satisfactory warrant for yielding to religious prejudice and fanaticism the support of those laws, when the demand for such a support may become a force that would disturb the public order. It may be a constantly diminishing force, but if it be yet strong enough to create disturbance, statesmanship takes account of it as a factor in the problem.AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.6

This statement and those of representatives Reilly and Houk, are the deliberate opinions of representative men, and officials in official place: men who were in position not only to know, but in which they were obliged to consider the question in all its bearings. And when, having so considered the question, they set forth this as their deliberate conclusion, then nothing more is needed to demonstrate that the church element, that is managing and supporting the Sunday cause in the United States, is one of the most dangerous elements in the United States.AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.7

THIS thought was so well presented before the House Committee on the Columbian Exposition, January 12, 1893, by Mrs. Marion Foster Washburne, of Chicago, that her earnest and weighty words are worthy to ring in the ears of all the people in the nation. In referring to the speeches and the representations of the clergy before the same committee the day before, she said:—AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.8

Moreover, they threatened—and of all things, the boycott! The very tactics they preach against from their pulpits. And one man said that the “religious boycott was justified by the deep prejudices of the people.”AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.9

I have a profound respect and reverence, as all fair-minded people must have, for the man who believes in his religion and stands upon it against the world; but I have precious little respect for the clergyman, who, when he wants to win a worldly advantage, uses a worldly argument, making the admission that the heavenly one is insufficient for practical purposes. The man who claims to have faith in prayer, and yet descends to the boycott!AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.10

... I know that we cannot possibly make as good a showing as some church societies, and the reason is that we are not organized as they are. The great mass of liberal and thoughtful people all over the country are not so organized that they can act as one, before such a committee, but their numbers may be—nay are—even greater than those contained in the societies here represented. They are simply quiet and tolerant private citizens, who, for the most part, are rather amused that any one should be intolerant. But while this organization of the evangelical churches gives them an advantage in being able to present petitions and speakers, it is, gentlemen, a danger! Our forefathers foresaw the danger of an organized minority coercing an unorganized majority, and forbade this country a standing army; there is as much danger, or, as the history of religious persecution shows, more danger, in the interference of an organized body of churches in the affairs of the State, than in a standing army.AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.11

Yet in the face of the indubitable evidence that the element that manages the Sunday cause is of such dangerous proclivities that the Government of the United States must be surrendered to it in order “to preserve the public peace,” these same ones take great pride in advertising and exalting themselves as “the best people of the land,” and the “law-abiding people of the country!”AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.12

THE truth is, however, that this claim, like the claim of their Sunday-Sabbath, is absolutely fraudulent. The undeniable fact is that these very ones are of the least law-abiding people in the United States. They have demonstrated that they have no respect for any law but such as their own arbitrary will approves. For without the slightest hesitation, yea, rather with open persistence, they have knowingly disregarded and overridden the supreme law—the Constitution—of the United States. They have set the example, and established the principle, of absolute lawlessness.AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.13

THESE facts demonstrate that instead of their being truly the law-abiding portion of the people, these men are among the chiefest law breakers in the land—the most lawless of all the nation. Nor is this at all to be wondered at. For, in order to accomplish this their bad purpose, they “gladly joined hands” and hearts with the papacy—that power which the Lord designates as the “lawless one” and as the very “mystery of lawlessness” itself. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7 (R.V.).AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.14

IN view of such an example as this, should it be thought surprising that lawlessness should be manifested by others throughout the whole country as never before, and that violence should cover the land from ocean to ocean?AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.15

In view of such an example as this set by “the best people” of the land, should it be thought strange that the example should be followed by the “Industrials,” “Commonwealers,” “Coxeyites,” the “Debsites,” or the “worst” people of the land?AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.16

If it is proper for the preachers and churches of the country to threaten Congress till their confessedly unconstitutional demands are complied with, why is it not equally proper for the “Commonwealers,” Debs and his followers, and everybody else, also to threaten Congress or anybody else, till their demands are complied with?AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.17

If Congress can guarantee to the people religion, even on Sunday, why shall it not also guarantee to the people money, or work, or whatever else may be demanded, on every day of the week?AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.18

When the principle of petition by threat, and legislation by clamor, and the surrender of governmental prerogative to preserve the public peace, has been once recognized in favor of one class, then why shall not the principle be applied in behalf of any and every other class, on demand?AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.19

Why should Coxey, Browne, Kelly, Frye, and company, be denounced, prosecuted, fined, and imprisoned, while simply following the example of Crafts, Cook, Shepard, George, and company, in which these latter were listened to, and honored by the preference of Congress and the United States Circuit Court?AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.20

IT was because of this evil example of “the best people of the land,” this principle of violence and lawlessness, forced upon the Government by the combined churches of the country—it was because of this that we have expected nothing else than that violence and lawlessness would spread through the land, and that we still expect it to become universal. This is not to say that the particular phases of lawlessness that have of late been manifested in so many parts of the country, have been carried on by the human actors therein in conscious and intentional pursuance of the example of lawlessness set by the churches; but it is to say that there is a spirit of things that must ever be taken into account. There is the Spirit of order, and there is the spirit of disorder. And when the Spirit of order has been so outraged, and the spirit of disorder chosen and persistently followed instead, as it has been in this case—and that too by the very ones who profess to be the representatives of the Spirit of order in the earth—then things are given over to the spirit of disorder and lawlessness, and nothing remains but that this spirit shall prevail and increase until it becomes universal. And we have no hesitation in saying that every man and woman who took part in this movement of the church-combine upon the Government is responsible for the consequences, violent and lawless as those consequences may be.AMS August 9, 1894, page 250.21

“No Longer Astonished” American Sentinel 9, 32, pp. 251, 252.

ATJ

THE worst phase of the present situation is that nothing surprises any one. Senators are examined as the pupils in a school when a pocket-book is stolen, every one called up and searched! All departments are being investigated and evidences of corruption are appearing on every side; what would once have set the country on fire with righteous indignation and fear are now stated as matters of everyday occurrence.AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.1

“And what will ye do in the end thereof?”—New York Christian Advocate.AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.1

And worse yet, nobody is righteously indignant. The only reason such things are questioned at all is to make political capital for the party making the exposé.AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.2

“Is Man Immortal?” American Sentinel 9, 32, pp. 251, 252.

ATJ

THE following letter demands respectful consideration because of its candid tone:—AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.1

EDITORS AMERICAN SENTINEL:—In an editorial of July 5th, under the above title, you have—unconsciously no doubt—laid yourself liable to the criticisms of many thoughtful readers. In attributing the murder and suicide referred to, to the “orthodoxy” of the demented father, you certainly forgot that a very prominent article in the creed of “orthodoxy” is that “No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him,” so that true “orthodoxy,” had he possessed it,—or rather, had it possessed him, would have prevented the shocking tragedy you mention.AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.2

Your quotations from Ecclesiastes—“The dead know not anything,” and from Job—“His sons come to honor and he knoweth it not,” and from the Psalms—“In that very day his thoughts perish,” come far short of teaching the unconscious condition of man after the body crumbles back to its native dust, even if there were not numerous declarations of the Scriptures positively teaching the opposite view, as Ecclesiastes 12:7—“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”—Before you reply that the term “spirit” means nothing but the mere “breath” or air that, in one sense keeps man alive, please examine Job 15th chapter and 13th verse, compared with the latter part of the 25th verse of the same chapter, where it is plain the speaker refers to the spirit of man as meaning man himself, instead of his “breath.” Let us read: “Thou turnest thy spirit against God, and lettest such words go out of thy mouth,” verse 13. And in verse 25—“He stretcheth out his hand against God, and strengtheneth himself against the Almighty.” Here there can be no question as to the identity of “spirit” with man himself. Again, Isaiah 57:15, “I dwell ... with him that is of an humble and contrite spirit.” Is it possible for mere “air” or the “breath” of men to be spoken of as having humility and contrition? If your view is tenable, it must be so.AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.3

In Proverbs 16th chapter, 18th verse, and in Psalm 32:2, and in 51:10, as well as in many other parts of the Word, the “spirit” of man is spoken of in such a manner as to make it absolutely impossible to understand the meaning as limited to the narrow bounds contended for by you. Take any Concordance, and look over the various passages referred to under “spirit,” and you will see at a glance that very few, if any of them can be properly interpreted as you and your writers are in the habit of doing.AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.4

And now as to the meaning of the passages you quoted as to the dead not “knowing anything,” etc., I think a careful examination of the several contexts will satisfy any ordinary read (who is not committed to, and influenced by, some special theory), that the passages in question simply teach this and nothing more, that after death men are so separated from their former surroundings and associations in this life as to know nothing concerning the things with which they were once interested, as in Job: “His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not.” C. W. SWARTZ.AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.5

Hillsdale, Mich.AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.6

It is true, as Mr. Swartz says, that so-called orthodoxy teaches not only the immortality of the soul, but also that “no murderer hath eternal life abiding him.” But this is nullified very largely by the definition given to the term “eternal life.” Life and death are not by “orthodoxy” permitted to have their natural and obvious meaning, but are made to mean misery and happiness. In this fact lurks the evil. Clothe a man with eternal life and he will readily take the chances on his condition in eternity. This argument prevailed with our first parents. It was when assured by the serpent that they should not surely die, but should be as gods that they took the forbidden fruit. The Lord says (Ezekiel 13:22): “With lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not turn from his wickedness, by promising him life.” ‘Orthodoxy” departs from the truth far enough to accept as one of its tenets Satan’s first great lie. Is it strange that many who accept this tenet go one step further and imagine that life a happy one?AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.7

We do not claim that in the Scriptures the term “spirit” always means “breath or air.” It sometimes means life; but it does not follow that consciousness attaches to that life. Life—animal life—is often present when there is no consciousness, as in sound sleep, injury to the brain, etc.AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.8

When God created man he “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” There was life, or spirit, if you please, in that breath; but the same thing was given to the lower animals for we read in Genesis 7:21, 22: “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.”AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.9

Just what this life is nobody knows, but when it leaves the body, whether of men or of beast, it returns to God who gave it. That this is so will appear from a comparison of Psalm 104:24-29 and Job 34:14. The first of these texts asserts what occurs when God gathers to himself the breath of the beast; the second asserts substantially the same thing of man. While Ecclesiastes 3:19 says plainly: “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as as [sic.] the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.” And in the twenty-first verse the question is asked: “Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descend downward?” (Douay Version.)AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.10

Our correspondent is clearly wrong in asserting that “spirit” sometimes means man himself; this is true of soul, but not of spirit. Nor do the verses to which he refers prove that the spirit is man himself any more than they prove that the “hand” is man himself. It is clear that in this case spirit means disposition or will; and that this is so is evident, for by substituting either of these words the sense is perfectly preserved. God dwells with the man who is of a humble disposition, a submissive will. There is in Isaiah 57:15 not the least evidence of immortality. Our correspondent is here beating the air. He has set up a man of straw which he very valiantly knocks down.AMS August 9, 1894, page 251.11

The Bible says that “the dead know not anything.” Our correspondent says that they “know nothing concerning the things with which they were once interested.” We may be excused for believing the words of God rather than our correspondent’s interpretation of those words. “The dead know not anything;” for, as the same Word declares (1 Timothy 6:16), God “only hath immortality.” We know this because God says so, and we believe his word.AMS August 9, 1894, page 252.1

“Satolli, Sunday Laws, and Salvation” American Sentinel 9, 32, pp. 252, 253.

ATJ

THE “Delegate Apostolic,” Mgr. Satolli, has just rendered a decision which involves the eternal damnation, so far as the Catholic Church controls this deplorable destiny, of all saloon keepers who violate the law forbidding the sale of “liquid damnation” on Sunday. It came about thus: Bishop Watterson, of the diocese of Columbus, Ohio, addressed a letter to the Catholic clergy of his diocese, in which he withdrew his approbation “from any and every Catholic society” “that has a liquor dealer or saloon keeper at its head, or any where among its officers,” and refused to approve all new societies or new branches of old societies having saloon keepers either as members or officers.AMS August 9, 1894, page 252.1

The letter further says:—AMS August 9, 1894, page 252.2

If there are saloon keepers in your parish who call themselves Catholics, and yet carry on their business in a forbidden and disedifying way, or sell on Sundays, either openly or under any sort of guise or disguises, in violation of civil law, and to the hurt of order and religion and the scandal of any part of the community, you will refuse them absolution, should they perchance come to receive the sacraments, unless they promise to cease offending in these or other ways and to conduct their business blamelessly if they can, or get out of it and keep out of it altogether.AMS August 9, 1894, page 252.3

An appeal was taken from this action of Bishop Watterson to Mgr. Satolli. The ablegate decided in favor of the bishop. The decision sums up as follows:—AMS August 9, 1894, page 252.4

Therefore the delegate apostolic sustains Bishop Watterson’s action and approves of his circular letter and regulations concerning saloons and the expulsion of saloon keepers from membership in Catholic societies.AMS August 9, 1894, page 252.5

The religious press, professedly Protestant, has joined in a chorus of congratulations to the ablegate for this great temperance(?) decision. The Independent goes so far as to say that “Archbishop Satolli, the apostolic delegate, has given a decision for which Protestants will thank him as heartily as his warmest Catholic supporters.”AMS August 9, 1894, page 252.6

Protestants will do no such thing. An examination of the case reveals the fact that the decision favors the legal enforcement of the papal Sunday more strongly than it favors temperance.AMS August 9, 1894, page 252.7

According to Bishop Watterson’s letter, Catholics may manufacture and sell the soul and body destroying liquor and still belong to the already organized Catholic societies. The Catholic saloon keeper can for six days out of the seven deal out to his fellow-creatures “distilled damnation,” rob men and women of their reason, make widows and orphans, rob mothers and children of bread, and still be a member of the Catholic Church and receive absolution from the hand of the priest. All this he can do for six days, but should he continue this death-dealing work on the first of the seven days, and “sell on Sunday, either openly or under any sort of guise or disguise, in violation of civil law,” then heaven is to be closed against him,—absolution, the pardon of sins, is to be refused, which means to the Catholic eternal destruction. Therefore it is not the selling of this liquid death to men and women that brings down the severest discipline on the Roman Catholic saloon keeper, but his selling on Sunday. The decision exalts the papal Sunday, the mark of papal power, but falls far short of a temperance measure. It is no wonder that professed Protestants who still wear the badge of Rome—the Sunday-Sabbath—should “thank” Rome “heartily” for this decision; but no true Protestant will join in the thanksgiving.AMS August 9, 1894, page 252.8

“An Interesting Question” American Sentinel 9, 32, p. 253.

ATJ

THERE is in Potterville, Mich., an Adventist who is a blacksmith. He was formerly a Methodist. He has not, since becoming an Adventist, done much work in his shop on Sunday, but works if he has anything urgent to do. His shop is one-fourth of a mile from the nearest meeting-house and several rods from any dwelling. He also muffles his anvil on Sunday so that no one can be disturbed by the noise. But recently the village council decided that he must stop Sunday work and he was so notified by the constable, while at work the following Sunday. The work went on, however. We have not yet learned the result, but this man certainly has in Michigan, not only a God-given, but a statutory right to work on Sunday. The statutes of that State provide:—AMS August 9, 1894, page 253.1

SECTION 7. No person who conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refrains from secular business and labor on that day, shall be liable to the penalties provided in this chapter, for performing secular business or labor on the said first day of the week, provided he disturb no other person.AMS August 9, 1894, page 253.2

In States where there is no clause exempting from the penalties of the Sunday law observers of the seventh day, the plea of the Sunday people is that “the law must be enforced.” In such cases the law, or that portion of it rather, is most sacred; to disobey it is to become an enemy of Christian civilization and a traitor to his country. But, lo! when the law is the other way and does not serve their bigoted ends they are ready to override all law in the interests of the Sunday idol. This shows that not love for law, but love of power is their ruling passion.AMS August 9, 1894, page 253.3

“Hoist with Their Own Petard” American Sentinel 9, 32, pp. 254, 255.

ATJ

AN interesting case of mob rule bringing grief on its promoters is reported crisp and fresh from Maryland, where in the past so many instances of bigotry have gone unchecked. The facts are these:AMS August 9, 1894, page 254.1

Two Seventh-day Adventists ministers, named respectively Jones and Howard, moved their tent in which meetings are conducted, and their household goods, by boat, from a point near Annapolis to Kent Island, Md., landing at the wharf of the Chester River Steamboat Company. After paying for the use of the dock one of them proceeded to the village of Stevensville, three miles distant, to secure a lot for pitching the tent, while the other remained to care for the goods. A farmer with his team was engaged to haul the tent and fixtures, and one load accompanied by one minister was soon deposited on the rented plot of ground in Stevensville, the other man remaining with the rest of the baggage on the wharf waiting for the return of the wagon. No sooner had preparations begun for putting up the tent, than a mob of rough men came on the lot and in coarse language commanded the work to stop, and demolished what had been done. The local magistrate was one of the gang, and, in fact, seemed to be the leader. Of course, the minister expostulated with them and protested that he had come to preach the good news to them; but he was compelled to desist from further efforts to provide his family with even the shelter of a tent from the coming darkness and storm. One man at last opened his house for them to stay during the night. The driver of the wagon was afraid to do anything more, and the ministers on the wharf remained all night guarding the property in his charge. Early next morning he was made acquainted with affairs at the other end of the line by the appearing of his brother minister. Together they consulted what step to take next, and the same faithful guardian remained by the stuff while the other started for Middletown, Del., to get further instructions and advice form the president of the conference under whose direction they labor.AMS August 9, 1894, page 254.2

Part of the first seven miles of the journey from Stevensville to Ford’s Store was made on foot through deep dust and under a broiling sun, and then a ride was secured by paying fifty cents. A large church of Seventh-day Adventists live at Ford’s Store, and here the minister had a good brother take his horse and drive to Centreville, twelve miles farther on, where he could get a slow train to Middletown. It was nearly night when he arrived there, and after a few hurried words with the presiding officer he returned to Kent Island. By good fortune he met on the way the sheriff of the county where the trouble occurred and to him related his case and received assurance of protection the following morning in putting up the tent. Several brethren of the Ford’s Store Church went over, and with their assistance the work was done; but the sheriff did not appear as promised. By a continual watch the rest of the day and the following night, only two ropes were cut on the tent by the angry mob that surrounded the little band.AMS August 9, 1894, page 254.3

In the meantime several men of the village who claimed to represent the public feeling, came as a committee and demanded as the only condition of peace and safety to persons and property, that the men and tents leave the island. The ministers took their names and agreed to consult again with the president of the conference by letter and a truce was declared for a little season.AMS August 9, 1894, page 254.4

The sheriff and his deputy arrived on the scene at this juncture, and on learning that the committee had kindly left their names, he promptly announced his determination to arrest every one of them and take them back to Centreville. He soon had the committee before him, and then they were informed that they had made themselves liable to his authority and of his purpose to prosecute them to the full extent of the law. At last he consented to let the ministers themselves say whether or not the committee should be arrested, and, taking the leader, the local magistrate, he marched him into the presence of his terrible foes, and said that just what the ministers said in the matter should be done. Of course, the preachers said, “Let the men go; we don’t want to trouble them. We want to preach the gospel of peace, and so, do not arrest these men.” The sheriff then informed the abashed “committee” that the would be held responsible if any further damage was done, and let them go—not exactly rejoicing, but glad to get out of the hole so easily. The consequence is that these men must now see that no harm comes to the preachers or the tents, else they will have to give an account to the sheriff. While the poor ministers sweetly sleep in peace after their hard experience, the ever vigilant committee must sit up and guard the men they tried to drive out of town. It is needless to say that under the guardianship of self-preservation from the county jail, the “public sentiment” they claimed to represent is fast changing in favor of the Seventh-day Adventist preachers.AMS August 9, 1894, page 254.5

The following reply from the president of the conference was received by the committee soon after the sheriff’s visit, and it is hoped they have read it with profit:—AMS August 9, 1894, page 254.6

Middletown, Del., July 28, 1894.AMS August 9, 1894, page 254.7

TO THE COMMITTEE,
Stevensville, Kent Island, Md.

DEAR SIRS: I have received the proposition made by your body to Messrs Jones and Howard, ministers of the gospel and licensed by the Seventh-day Adventist Conference, which I have the honor to represent as president. From their statement of the kind manner in which you requested them to leave the place and offered to refund some items of expense incurred by them in moving, we are persuaded that you are gentlemen of candor and that the course you recommend is one in which you desire to protect us, as well as the public, from any difficulty. You will therefore be able to appreciate our statement and reply, as follows:AMS August 9, 1894, page 254.8

We are not our own masters in these matters. We profess allegiance to Christ, whose servants we are. He bids us to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He tells us that persecution will be the lot of those who do his bidding, but that he will be with us to the end of the world. We have no option to seek the favor of men on one hand or to escape their hatred on the other. Our business is plain and simple and we cannot vary from it without denying our Saviour and proving unworthy of the name we bear through him. For this, the highest of all reasons, we cannot agree to leave that to any other locality without giving the knowledge we are commissioned to impart. When persons, individually, refuse to hear our Master we have no more to do and will quietly leave them, but we cannot recognize the right of any committee to decide this question for others. If the people are not willing to search the Scriptures to see if these things are so we will soon leave, but till then we must offer them the bread of life and no promises or threats will change our steadfast purpose. Millions of martyrs have died for the principle we hold and we are willing to meet the same end if God wills it so. What would the Methodists of Kent Island think if a proposal was made to them to close up their churches and send their ministers away? In the past they suffered as Seventh-day Adventists suffer now, but this did not hinder them and neither will it deter us.AMS August 9, 1894, page 255.1

Religious prejudice in both cases was what made the trouble. We are confident that we have a work to do similar to that done by John Wesley and his followers of the past. We therefore ask, in the name of our common Master, that we be permitted to preach the message that all may decide what to do.AMS August 9, 1894, page 255.2

Another reason for declining to leave Kent Island as proposed by you, is that we have the same civil right to peacably [sic.] go and come and labor in your midst as any other individuals. We are quiet, upright citizens of a common country. It is an insult, though not intended, to ask us to leave the community like characters dangerous to the welfare of our fellow-men. We are not criminals and shall not accept to be treated as such without protest. We will appeal to the authorities to protect us in the inalienable rights of all men. Our fathers fought for the freedom of this land and we still claim it for ourselves and everybody else. We have no more privileges than others, but we are entitled to the same. Would either of the gentlemen of the committee consent to be driven from his lawful labor either by bribes or intimidation? His answer is ours. We may possibly suffer for our faith but we cannot yield and still at heart be men. Civil and religious liberty are involved and we will sacrifice the principle of neither to save ourselves trouble from persons who ignore the God-given right of all men.AMS August 9, 1894, page 255.3

Permit me to make a suggestion that will obviate the difficulty feared and the truth not be compromised. Let them, each and all, as men of influence and reputation in the locality, take an open and decided stand against the lawless persons who seek to injure us in our legitimate rights and thus destroy the peace of the public. With such assistance from you, gentlemen, we will have good order and I trust a true Christian spirit may be seen among us all. It you will labor to restrain the acts of violence contemplated instead of urging us to yield to it and violate the divine rights and duties before mentioned you will find us ready to second every effort made for harmony.AMS August 9, 1894, page 255.4

Trusting that you will see the justice of our claim and stand true to principle with us, I amAMS August 9, 1894, page 255.5

Yours very respectfully, H. E. ROBINSON,

Pres. Atl. Conf. Seventh-day Adventists.

At this writing no reply has been made to President Robinson’s letter, and no further violence has been offered to the ministers.AMS August 9, 1894, page 255.6

August 2, 1894

August 16, 1894