NO greater mistake could be made than to suppose that to habitually treat Sunday in all respects as an ordinary day is not a matter of conscience with Seventh-day Adventists. The Christian’s rule of life is: “Whether ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God;” and the Adventist following his plow on Sunday is as truly serving God as when going to church on the previous day.AMS October 18, 1894, page 321.1

BUT the State has no right to inquire whether an act is done conscientiously or not. If any act does not infringe the equal rights of others, the State has no right to forbid it, whether conscientiously done or not. The Sunday-keeper is no more entitled to undisturbed rest on the first day of the week than the Sabbath-keeper is to undisturbed rest on the seventh day; and since the Sabbath-keeper can rest and worship while the Sunday-keeper is at work, so can the Sunday-keeper rest and worship equally as well while the Sabbath-keeper works. The question of conscience cannot be considered by the State further than this: If any law affects the conscience and not the equal rights of men, that fact alone proves that it is outside the domain of proper civil legislation.AMS October 18, 1894, page 321.2

EVERY clause in every Sunday law in the world that exempts those who “conscientiously” believe in and observe another day is a confession that such legislation is improper. Every such provision is a confession that the keeping of a Sabbath is a question directly affecting the conscience and not affecting natural rights. No statute against murder, or assault, or robbery, or slander, or arson, ever contained a clause exempting from its penalties persons who might violate it conscientiously. And why?—Simply because such things are not matters of conscience but are matters of right, natural, human rights; and no man has any right to take another’s life or property, or to burn his house, or blacken his reputation under any circumstances. No amount of conscientious conviction can, by any possibility, confer any such right. Rights exist independently of conscience; they are not created by conscience, but exist in the nature of things according to the divine order, and one man’s conscience cannot of right trench on another’s rights. But that is just what is done when the conscience of the majority is incorporated into statutes for the government of the minority, however small that majority may be.AMS October 18, 1894, page 321.3

“Christ or Peter—Which?” American Sentinel 9, 41, pp. 321, 322.

ATJ

IN our consideration of the claim of papal “infallibility” last week, we found that Christ and not Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. But let us have the word of the Lord by Peter himself on this point. Thus it is written by the hand of Peter: “As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: to whom coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore it is also contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you, therefore, that believe, he is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner.” 1 Peter 2:2-7. That the “stone” here referred to is none other than Jesus Christ himself, and not Peter in any sense, is clear from the words spoken by Peter in another place, thus, speaking of “Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” whom the Jews had crucified, he says. “This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.” Acts 4:10, 11.AMS October 18, 1894, page 321.1

In the first of these passages from the words of Peter, he says that this “is contained in the scripture,” and then quotes a portion of this “scripture.” Let us turn to that scripture to which Peter here refers, and which he says means “Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” and see what it does say in full. Here is it: “Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste.” Isaiah 28:16. Peter himself says that this stone which is laid “for a foundation” is “Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” and that “this stone”—this “Jesus Christ of Nazareth”—“is the head.” And Peter says that it is to this “living stone” that men must come in order to be of the building of Christ—in order to be of this “spiritual house,” which is the Church of the living God.AMS October 18, 1894, page 321.2

Now, to every one who cares for the truth only, the testimony of Peter himself is better than the testimony of the Catholic Church about Peter. And to every such one the inspired testimony of Peter himself as to who is the foundation and head of the Church, is far better than is the uninspired and self-interested testimony of the Catholic Church and her popes about Peter. The inspired testimony of Peter himself is that “Jesus Christ of Nazareth” is “the stone,” the “living stone,” which is the “sure foundation” and “the head” of the building of God, this “spiritual house,” which is the Church of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. This is also the inspired testimony of the apostle Paul. In other words, this is the testimony of Jesus Christ himself, that he and he alone is the foundation and head of the apostles and prophets and of the whole Church of Christ, and that “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.AMS October 18, 1894, page 321.3

And this word demonstrates that the claim of the papacy that Peter is the foundation and head of the Church of Christ is as false, fleeting, baseless, and intangible, as is “the stuff that dreams are made of.” It therefore and of necessity follows that the “infallibility of the pope,” as derived from “the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,” is also as false, fleeting, baseless, and intangible, as is “the stuff that dreams are made of.” Thus, again, we are brought to the fact that “the infallibility of the pope” springs altogether from the law that, out of nothing something comes!AMS October 18, 1894, page 321.4

There is another statement in the foregoing quotation from Cardinal Gibbons that is worth noticing in this connection. It is that in which he makes Jesus say to Peter, “Thou, O Peter, shalt be the foundation of this church. It shall never fall, because thou shalt never be shaken.” In noticing the words of Christ to Peter that he had prayed for him, that when he should be sifted as wheat, his faith fail not, the cardinal further says: “Therefore the faith of Peter will always be firm” (page 152); that, consequently, the faith of Peter’s “successors” would always be firm, and therefore these “successors” would always be infallible in the faith.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.1

This argument, like all their other ones in favor of the infallibility of the pope, is utterly groundless, from the divinely recorded fact that Peter was shaken and that his faith did fail more than once. For it was after these words were spoken by the Lord that Peter denied him three times and declared that he did not know him. It will not do to say that this was not a point “regarding faith or morals,” and that therefore infallibility was not involved. It was entirely a question of faith and morals.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.2

It was a question of faith, for the knowing of the Lord Jesus is nothing else than a matter of faith; and to deny him is nothing else than to deny the faith by which alone he is known.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.3

It was a question of morals, too, because to make his denial as emphatic as possible, Peter then and there “began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.” Mark 14:71. And it is certain that to curse and to swear involves a question of morals.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.4

Therefore it is certain, by the divine record, that Peter did fail and did decide wrongly on a question of faith and morals. And this divinely recorded fact annihilates the claim of the infallibility of the pope, as derived in succession from Peter, “when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, ‘from the chair’ of St. Peter,” or from anywhere else, “regarding a question of faith or morals,” or anything else.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.5

If this fact and the logic of it would be dodged by the plea that this all occurred before the day of Pentecost, and therefore before Peter was endowed with the Holy Ghost; this plea will fail also because of the divinely recorded fact that after Pentecost Peter failed again, and this, too, upon the very pivotal point of the faith. Here is the word of the Lord as to that:—AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.6

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:11-16.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.7

Here is the divine record that Peter “was to be blamed” in this matter, and this “because he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” And the particular point of the truth of the gospel that was involved in this transaction of Peter’s, was the all-important question of how are men to be justified? Is it by faith? or is it by works? Is it by the faith of Christ? or is it by works of the law? Is it by faith without works—a faith which works? or is it by “faith and works,” with all the trust in the works? Is it by Christ alone? or is it by Christ and something else? This was the question that was involved in the course of Peter there. It was nothing less than the supreme question of faith and morals. And on this supreme question of faith and morals Peter there decided wrongly. He decided this great question not according to the truth of the gospel. This is the truth by the word of God, and it therefore annihilates all the claim of the infallibility of the pope as derived from “blessed Peter” when he speaks “from the chair of St. Peter” or from anywhere else, “regarding a question of faith or morals” or anything else.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.8

Cardinal Gibbons seems to see the danger to “the infallibility of the pope” from this fact, and he therefore says of it that—AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.9

St. Paul criticised his [Peter’s] conduct on a point not affecting doctrine, but discipline.—Id., p. 128.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.10

But this will never do, even for him; because this question that was then up between Paul and those Jews who professed the faith, and who constantly followed up Paul and opposed the gospel, and by whom Peter, and even Barnabas, was carried away from the truth of the gospel—that question we say that was then up between Paul and those Jews was the very question that was up between the Reformers and the papacy in the Reformation. And the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions raised by the Reformation, treated this question altogether as a question of doctrine, and not of discipline at all. So, for the cardinal to say that Paul criticised Peter’s conduct “on a point not affecting doctrine,” while it was the very point that the Council of Trent treated as altogether affecting doctrine—this will not do even for him: this fact destroys his argument and annihilates even this plea by which he would save “infallibility” to Peter and to the pope “in blessed Peter.”AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.11

So, then, the conclusion of the whole matter is simply this: As the claim of “the infallibility of the pope” is solely that it is “promised to him in blessed Peter,” it follows plainly enough that if it was not in Peter, then eve, according to their own dogma, the pope does not have it, and no bishop of Rome ever did have it. And by the divine record it is certain that Peter at least twice decided wrongly “regarding faith and morals.”AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.12

Therefore by the divine record it is made perfectly certain that the infallibility of the pope or of any other man or set of men, derived from “the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,” or in anybody else, when he speaks “ex cathedra,” or any other way, on a question “regarding faith or morals,” or anything else, is utterly without any shadow of foundation in any right conception imaginable.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.13

Every argument adduced in its favor is sheer fallacy; and analysis of every claim upon which it is based only develops the finale that, out of nothing something comes. Yet, as the thought that out of nothing something comes, involves either creation or absurdity, and as this claim of infallibility is seriously asserted by and in behalf of the papacy, this is but the development of the assertion of creative power as the prerogative of the papacy. It is the usurpation by the papacy, of the essential prerogative of the Creator. It was therefore perfectly fitting to the subject and to the occasion, that, when the decree of the infallibility of the pope was passed in the Vatican Council, Pius IX. should pervert to this blasphemous service the dying words of our Creator and Redeemer, and rapturously exclaim, “It is finished.”AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.14

But as any claim on the part of a man in any place, of the prerogative of creation, is but absurdity and nothingness; so this claim of the papacy, which, by every analysis, develops only the finale that out of nothing something comes, is only supreme absurdity and absolute nothingness. It is the most unconscionable piece of imposture that was ever proposed to be imposed upon mankind. It is the greatest humbug in the most gigantic system of humbuggery that ever there was in the world. It is the culmination of the blasphemous claim of this “the mystery of iniquity,” beyond which it is impossible even for it go to.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.15

“The Release of Mr. Capps” American Sentinel 9, 41, pp. 322, 323.

ATJ

LAMST week we promised our readers additional facts in connection with the release of Mr. Capps, the Seventh-day Adventist, who was imprisoned in the country jail of Dresden, Weakley Co., Tenn., for doing farm labor on Sunday. On investigation we learned that under date of August 10, the American Hebrew, of this city, appealed for donations in the interests of Mr. Capps, in a strong editorial entitled, “A Sacrifice for Principle.” Following the narration of the facts in connection with the prosecution, the editorial says:—AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.1

This is inhumanity and injustice. It is the most barefaced religious persecution. It is outrageous that a judge should so construe the law as to inflict such punishment for such an alleged offense. It is abominable that any legislative body should allow its statutes to remain so that they can be so construed.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.2

But, with all our indignation and protestation, there is a more sacred duty, and that is to provide for the destitute family of this martyr. A committee has been organized to collect funds for this purpose, and we trust that our co-religionists will be generous in adding their share. We will gladly receive all sums for this object, and will transmit them to the committee, after acknowledging the receipt thereof in our columns.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.3

To this appeal the following persons responded: Mr. Waldheim, $3.; J. C. Levy, 140 Nassau St., New York, $2; Sabbath Observer, 50 cents; A. J. Bloomberg, 50 E. Sixty-fifth St., $1; Moses A. Dropsie, Philadelphia, $50; D. M. Piza, $5; making a total of $61.50.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.4

Accompanying his remittance Mr. J. C. Levy made the following comments:—AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.5

Capps is a martyr to the cause of religious liberty in the bigoted State of Tennessee. He is punished for obeying the law of God, which the law of Tennessee says shall not be obeyed in its jurisdiction.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.6

We may talk as we please about religious liberty and the separation of Church and State in this country, but it does not wholly exist. The religious majority in our free land, when it can safely do so, oppresses the minority.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.7

All honor to Capps! Let him work out in jail the punishment which the State of Tennessee exacts for believing that religious liberty exists within its borders, but meanwhile let his poor family be provided for.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.8

Later the American Hebrew decided to apply the amount contributed to the payment of the fine, which was done. The balance was donated to Mr. Capps.AMS October 18, 1894, page 322.9

The issue of the American Hebrew of October 5 contained the following editorial note:—AMS October 18, 1894, page 323.1

In the Land of Religious Liberty

Some weeks ago we appealed in these columns for aid for a party in Tennessee, who was imprisoned and fined for working on his farm on Sunday. He belongs to a Christian sect that observes Saturday as the Sabbath. The response to our appeal brought in $61.50. Although a collection was being made in behalf of the cause by persons in the West, we deemed it advisable to consult Chas. E. Buell, of Plainfield, New Jersey, as to the manner in which the money should be applied, since that gentleman had brought the matter to our attention. It was concluded that the wisest plan would be to pay the fine and have Mr. Capps released, the surplus to be given him after that, to enable him to start afresh, as his imprisonment had well nigh ruined him. We therefore forwarded $34.87 to J. J. Thomason, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Weakley Co., in Dresden, Tenn.AMS October 18, 1894, page 323.2

Mr. Capps wrote gratefully acknowledging the kind act of the American Hebrew and its friends.AMS October 18, 1894, page 323.3

All lovers of liberty will feel kindly toward the American Hebrew for interesting itself in this case of a persecuted fellow-citizen; and the contributors have manifested the spirit of an “Israelite indeed.”AMS October 18, 1894, page 323.4

While Mr. Capps and his brethren are conscientiously opposed to paying fines assessed under these oppressive Sunday laws, yet when others, unsolicited, pay the fines and release them from custody, they can but joyfully return to their families, with gratitude to those whose liberality has secured their freedom.AMS October 18, 1894, page 323.5

May “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” bless our Hebrew friends!AMS October 18, 1894, page 323.6

“The Papacy and the Temporal Power” American Sentinel 9, 41, p. 324.

ATJ

THE New York Sun, of the 9th inst., has an editorial article, in which is discussed the relations of the papacy and the civil power in Italy.AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.1

In a speech, noted in these columns two weeks ago, Premier Crispi said that there must be a union of forces against anarchism under a banner inscribed, “For God, our King and our Country.”AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.2

Crispi’s utterance is properly regarded as a bid for the favor of the pope; but judging by the Roman Catholic press of Europe, the pope will accept nothing short of abject surrender of the Italian government and a restoration of the temporal power, at least in the city of Rome.AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.3

“Some light,” remarks the Sun, “is thrown upon this subject by the London Tablet, which collects in a recent number the comments of several Italian newspapers that are supposed to represent with more or less fidelity the views of Leo XIII. The purport of their declarations is that a restitution of the temporal sovereignty of the pope cannot be looked for, and that, in the absence thereof, no compromise between the papacy and the civil power in Italy is possible.”AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.4

If Crispi would make peace with the pope he must follow in the footsteps of Henry the IVth. The Sun says:—AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.5

It is true enough that the pilgrimage the Canossa involves penance and restitution no less than professions of faith. The German Emperor who made the memorable journey recognized its implied obligations, and Bismarck, when seeking the support of German Catholics in the Reichstag, acknowledged that he must earn it by repealing most of the Falk laws.AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.6

The Voce della Verita congratulates Crispi on his conversion, but asks for some tangible evidence of it in “the restoration of the Decalogue and the divine law which,” it says, “the Italian government has not merely forgotten, but trampled under foot.”AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.7

The Unit Catollica, suggests that “before talk of reconciliation should come mention of reparation. To Signor Crispi we would put the question, ‘Are you ready to undo the work of the revolution in regard to the church; to restore to the pope effective and tangible sovereignty, liberty, and independence within the limits assigned by history and the pontifical rights; in a word, to overturn from top to bottom all that constitutes modern Italy?’”AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.8

Other more or less pertinent opinions are quoted, all of the same import, namely that there can be no reconciliation without restoration. The Sun, however, thinks that “these Italian Catholic editors are inclined to be more papistical than the pope; as if, in other words, they are disposed to ask too much, and above all, too much at once.” But Italy is in dire straits, and an abject surrender to the pope need surprise no one.AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.9

The temper of the papacy upon this question cannot be mistaken. A writer in the Tablet, referring to resolutions passed every year by Catholic congresses, urges that these are useless until public opinion changes in Italy, or until the Catholics of France, Spain, and Austria are ready to do more than pass resolutions; says:—AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.10

Not until the Catholics of these three States, or even of one of them, acquire the supremacy over the anti-Christian portion of their fellow-subjects and hold in their hands the destinies of their country, can they invite the two hundred million of Catholics, in the rest of the world, to aid them by furnishing money and volunteers for the undertaking, which should be carried out in the name of the whole Catholic community.AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.11

“This is the real spirit of the papacy,” says another London paper, “the encyclicals on peace and good-will amongst men notwithstanding.”AMS October 18, 1894, page 324.12

October 11, 1894

October 25, 1894