CARDINAL VAUGHN, archbishop of Westminster, according to the Catholic Review of Nov. 24, “authoritatively” instructed the Roman Catholic voters of London to vote for the Tory candidates for school trustees and against the Liberals, because the former are in favor of teaching religion in the public schools, and the latter opposed to it.AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.1

NOW we rise and respectfully ask the Catholic Review to explain the difference between this action of Roman Catholic officials in England and the action of the A. P. A. in America. The whole Catholic Church of the United States is posing before the country as martyrs, the victims of the persecuting A. P. A. This organization is opposed to just such Roman Catholic ideas of the relation of Church and State as are illustrated by the cardinal’s position in favor of teaching religion in the public schools with public money; and consequently votes against Roman Catholic candidates for public office. This, say Roman Catholics, is persecution.AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.2

WHAT, we again inquire, is the difference between an organized political Catholic boycott of candidates in England because they are in favor of the separation of religion and the public schools, and an organized political Protestant boycott of candidates in America, because they are in favor of the union of religion and the public schools? It will not do to answer that the one is secret and the other not, for the Roman Catholic Church is the most thoroughly secret organization in the world.AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.3

A CARDINAL’S oath reads thus: “I,——, cardinal of the holy Roman Church, do promise and swear that ... I will never knowingly and advisedly, to their injury or disgrace, make public the counsels intrusted [sic.] to me by themselves [the popes], or by messengers, or letters” ^{1The Papacy by Dr. J. A. Wylie, p. 122.} [from them]. A bishop promises that “the counsels which they [the popes] shall intrust [sic.] me withal by themselves, their messengers, or letters, I will not knowingly reveal to any to their prejudice.” ^{2Id., p. 135.}AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.4

Now that the charge of secrecy is disposed of in advance, we again repeat our request to the Catholic Review to tell us the difference between a Roman Catholic political boycott in England and an A. P. A. boycott in America. The SENTINEL is not an advocate of A. P. A. methods, as its readers well know, but it desires an answer to its question nevertheless.AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.5

“Did the Roman Catholic Church Ever Persecute?” American Sentinel 9, 48, pp. 377, 378.

ATJ

ROMAN CATHOLICS persistently deny that “the church” ever persecuted. Upon this subject Cardinal Gibbons says in “The Faith of Our Fathers“:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.1

I here assert the proposition.... that the Catholic Church has always been the zealous promoter of religious and civil liberty; and that whenever any encroachments on these sacred rights of men were perpetrated by professing members of the Catholic faith, these wrongs, far from being sanctioned by the church, were committed in palpable violation of her authority.AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.2

In like manner, Donahoe’s Magazine for September, 1894, says of the Roman Catholic Church: “She has never sanctioned or approved religious persecution of any kind.”AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.3

Abundant evidence has been published in these columns very recently to disprove this claim in behalf of Rome; but much more can be said; and that it should be said is evident from the fact that that church is now posing before the world, not as a penitent for past wrongs, but as the infallible custodian of the truth of God, and the defender of both civil and religious liberty in all ages of the Christian era.AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.4

The quotation given in this paper last week from a cardinal-indorsed Roman Catholic work, entitled, “Half Hours With the Servants of God,” shows that the Inquisition was a creation of the Roman Catholic Church. Nor was this all; according to her own confession, Rome not only “forged” that diabolical weapon, but she appointed her own agents to use it, and compelled the civil power to inflict the penalties and execute the sentences of that most dreadful of all human tribunals.AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.5

But even before the creation of the tribunal known as the Inquisition, the Roman Catholic Church persecuted. According to “A Catholic Dictionary,” ^{1Published in this city in 1893, by Bensinger Brothers, “printers to the body apostolic see.”} article, “Albigenses,” Innocent III., in 1208, “proclaimed a crusade or holy war with indulgences against the Albigensean heretics, and requested Philip II., the king of France, to put himself at its head.” The Catholic historian continues:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.6

The king refused, but permitted any of his vassals to join it who chose. An army was collected, composed largely of desperadoes, mercenary soldiers, and adventurers of every description, whose sole object was plunder. Raymond, in great fear, not only promised all that was demanded of him, but assumed the Cross himself against his protégés. The war opened in 1209 with the siege of Béziers and the massacre of its inhabitants. Simon de Montfort, the father of the famous Earl of Leicester, was made count of the territories conquered. The war lasted many years and became political; in its progress great atrocities were committed. Languedoc was laid desolate, and the Provencal civilization destroyed. Peace was made in 1227, and the tribunal of the Inquisition established soon after.AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.7

It will be noted that this was, according to this Roman Catholic authority, a “holy war,” proclaimed by a pope of Rome against “heretics.” Its object was the extirpation of “heresy,” though it afterwards “became political.” But the very first act in this war was the pillage of a city and the massacre of the inhabitants. And though it is asserted that it “became political,” one of its direct results was the establishment of the Inquisition. And no wonder, for that fiend incarnate, Dominic, who was the inventor of the Inquisition, was likewise instrumental in no small degree in inaugurating that so-called “holy war.”AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.8

Upon the same subject, Du Pin, a Roman Catholic author, says:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.9

The pope and the prelates were of opinion that it was lawful to make use of force, to see whether those who were not reclaimed out of a sense of their salvation might be so by the fear of punishments, and even of temporal death. There had been already several instances of heretics condemned to fines, to banishments, to punishments, and even in death itself; but there had never yet been any war proclaimed against them, nor any them, nor any crusade preached up for the extirpation of them. Innocent III. was the first that proclaimed such a war against the Albigenses and Waldenses, and against Raymond, Count of Toulouse, their protector. War might subdue the heads, and reduce whole bodies of people; but it was not capable to altering the sentiments of particular persons, or of hindering them from teaching their doctrines secretly. Whereupon the pope thought it advisable to set up a tribunal of such persons whose business it should be to make inquiry after heretics, and to draw up informations against them; and from hence this tribunal was called The Inquisition.—Vol. Ii, p. 154.AMS December 6, 1894, page 377.10

The same work previously referred to, “A Catholic Dictionary,” article, “Dominicans,” says:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.1

In 1204 and 1205 the Bishop of Osma was sent into France on the affair of a contemplated marriage between King Alfonso IX. and a princess of the house of La Marche; Dominic accompanied him as his chaplain. The southern provinces of Frances were then teeming with heresies of the numerous sects which pass under the general name of Albigenses, and the peril seem imminent that large numbers of persons would before long, if no restraining influence appeared, throw off the bonds of religion, social order, and morality.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.2

The death of the princes referred to ended the bishop’s mission, and he turned his attention to combating heresy. The pope strongly approved of the object, but refused to allow the bishop to be absent from his diocese beyond two years. The result was that Dominic was finally left alone in the work of converting “heretics.” It was thus that he was brought into contact with “heresy,” and his zeal from the “true church” and the “true faith” fired to that extent that his life was given to the extirpation of “heresy,” first, by the proscribing of what he probably supposed was truth; second, by the so-called “holy war;” and third, by torture inflicted under the forces of civil law. On this point Rev. Samuel Edgar says:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.3

The holy office as well as the holy see showed Dominic’s cruelty. The Inquisition, indeed, during his superintendence, had no legal tribunal; and the engines of torment were not brought to the perfection exhibited in modern days of Spanish inquisitorial glory. But Dominic, notwithstanding, could, even with this bungling machinery and without a chartered establishment, gratify his feelings of benevolence in all their refinement and delicacy. Dislocating the joints of the refractory Albigensian, as practiced in the Tolosan Inquisition, afforded the saint a classical and Christian amusement. The kind operation he perform by “suspending his victim by a cord, affixed to his arms that were brought behind his back, which, being raised by a wheel, lifted off the ground the suspected Waldensian, man or woman who refused to confess, till forced by the violence of turture.” Innocent commissioned Dominic to punish, not only by confiscation and banishment, but also with death; and, in the execution of his task, he stimulated the magistracy and populace to massacre the harmless professors of Waldensianism. “His saintship, by words and MIRACLES, convicted a hundred and eighty Albigenses, who were at one time committed to the flames.” ^{2Fuerunt eliquando simul exusti CLXXX hereticl ADagenses, cum antea et virtue et miraquilla eco H. Dominicus convicimet, Beil. De laic. III. 22. Veily, 5, 435. Giannon XV. 4.}—The Variations of Popery, p. 267.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.4

It should be borne in mind that the concluding sentence of the paragraph quoted from Mr. Edgar’s work, is a literal translation from a Catholic authority; thus, again, is Rome condemned out of the mouth of her own witness.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.5

Turning again to the “Catholic Dictionary,” previously quoted, we find this testimony:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.6

Hussites. The followers of the Bohemian John Huss, rector of the university of Prague, who was burnt for heresy at the Council of Constance.... Several crusades were preached against them.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.7

Again, under “Indulgences,” the same Roman Catholic authority says:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.8

The period of the Crusades marks a turning point in the history of indulgences, for they were given more and more freely from that time onwards. In the first place it is to be noted that indulgences were given for wars analogous to the Crusades. For example, at the Council of Siena, in 1425, a plenary indulgence was offered to those who took arms against the Hussites; while wars against the Waldenses, Albigenses, Moors and Turks were stimulated by the same means.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.9

Such evidence might be greatly multiplied, but enough has been given from Catholic writers and authorities, to show conclusively that the rack, the stake, the torch, and the sword, have all been employed in the interests of the Roman Catholic propaganda, and this at the instigation of Roman Catholic sovereigns, prelates and popes.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.10

How then can Rome hope to escape the odium of the bitter persecution of the Middle Ages?—In the same manner that so-called Protestants of to-day seek to shirk responsibility for the persecution of those who differ from them in religious faith and practice; namely, by asserting that it is not religious persecution, but only the enforcement of civil law, and that the State and not the Church is responsible.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.11

It was argued then, as it is now, that religion was essential to morality, and that morality was essential to good citizenship, and that, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the State to foster good morals by protecting the Christian faith. Note the language previously quoted from “A Catholic Dictionary,” concerning Dominic’s first acquaintance with the Albigenses:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.12

The southern provinces of France were then teeming with the heresies of the numerous sects which pass under the general name of Albigenses, and the peril seemed imminent that large numbers of persons would, before long, if no restraining influence appeared, throw off the bonds of religion, social order and morality.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.13

It is the same to-day. Rev. Robert Patterson, D.D., says in defense of Sunday laws:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.14

It is the right of the State to protect by law such a fundamental support of government. This attack on the Sabbath is treason against the very foundations of government. As such, let it be resisted by every American citizen. The American Sabbath is essential to American liberty, to our Republic, and to God’s religion.—The American Sabbath, by the Rev. Robert Patterson, D. D.,; Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia, 1867.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.15

In like manner, Judge Robinson, of Maryland, before whom several Seventh-day Adventists have been tried and convicted for Sunday work, said recently, in substance: “Why, if we let these people go on, all restraint will be broken down and the way will be opened for horse-racing, gambling, etc., on Sunday.”AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.16

This was only putting into slightly different phase the papal “argument” of the thirteenth century in justification of the Albigensean Crusade and the Inquisition. It is neither better nor worse now than it was then. Then the Roman Catholic faith was regarded as the bulwark of social order, and so to be protected by civil law; now the Sunday institution is declared to be essential to good government and so, to be jealously guarded by the State. In these Sunday law persecutions, history is simply repeating itself.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.17

But the fact remains that while it was the civil power that inflicted the death penalty, the laws which authorized such things were enacted and promulgated in response to the demand of the church, just as Sunday laws and kindred measures are to-day enacted and enforced in response to the united demands of the several “Protestant” sects. Rome did persecute; first, by means of the civil power; and second, by means of her own court—the Inquisition; and in like manner the Protestant churches of to-day are persecuting, by means of the “civil” Sunday laws of the several States, and by their own secret courts of inquisition, the “law and order leagues,” “Sabbath unions,” etc. The likeness is complete.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.18

“‘Obey the Law Until Repealed’” American Sentinel 9, 48, pp. 378, 379.

ATJ

ARE Seventh-day Adventists justified in disobeying the laws of the land, enforcing idleness on Sunday?AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.1

To every member of the denomination this question has become of vital importance. His honor, Judge Robinson, in passing sentence upon Mr. Robert R. Whaley, now confined in the county fail at Centreville, Md., said it was Mr. Whaley’s duty to obey the law until he could secure its modification or repeal.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.2

This has been the unanimous admonition of judges from the village magistrate to the United States Circuit Court. It is the argument advanced against them by the organizations which are straining every nerve to maintain existing Sunday laws where endangered, and the enactment and enforcement of more stringent laws wherever possible. The following conversation recently occurred between an editor of the SENTINEL, and a Sunday-law champion:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.3

Ques.—Are you in favor of the imprisonment of Seventh-day Adventists for laboring on Sunday as now in progress in Tennessee, Maryland, and other States?AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.4

Ans.—Seventh-day Adventists, as law-abiding citizens, should obey the Sunday law until they can secure a repeal of the law.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.5

Ques.—Are you, then, in favor of repealing the Sunday laws under which they now suffer?AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.6

Ans.—I am not.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.7

Ques.—Then you would oppose the repeal of the laws by which Seventh-day Adventists are imprisoned?AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.8

Ans.—I certainly would.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.9

It is very evident that in many cases this counsel is not given in good faith; but there is reason to believe that it has been offered by those who are sincere and who desire to see the oppressive laws repealed. An evidence of this has just come to hand. This advice is given by a Lutheran minister with whom we have corresponded for some time and whom we know to be a friend of the cause of complete separation of Church and State, even to the extent of repealing all Sunday laws. But had the course here advised been followed by the heralds of truth in all ages, the whole world would not be enveloped in the blackest of heathen darkness.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.10

Daniel did not try to secure the repeal of the law, but opened his window toward Jerusalem as aforetime, and prayed, in the face of a law of the world-conquering empire of Babylon, and the one great Lawgiver of the universe sanctioned the violation of that law, “and stopped the mouths of the lions.” The three Hebrews when ordered to bow down before the golden image, stood up, and violated the law of the empire, and again the Supreme Court of heaven ratified the violation and they emerged from the fiery furnace unharmed.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.11

And then the Chief Justice of the supreme court of the universe came to earth in the person of his Son and violated the “civil Sabbath laws” of the Jews, his chosen nation, and faithfully kept the “Sabbath of the Lord,” his own holy day, though hounded and persecuted by the Pharisees and Herodians, the Sabbath association and law and order league of Jerusalem; thus “leaving as an example that ye should follow in his steps.” He then commanded his disciples, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” “and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” To obey this command was to disobey the laws of that empire which ruled “all the world” with an iron hand, and which forbade the worship of any “new or foreign gods unless they are recognized by public laws.” They did not attempt to get Christianity recognized by public law, or the existing law modified, but threw themselves into the yawning chasm of persecution until, like Napoleon’s famous calvary at Waterloo, they had bridged the ravine with human lives, and made it possible for those who followed to cross in safety.AMS December 6, 1894, page 378.12

When the blood-bought victory had been bartered for a mess of pottage,—human power; when the world was again plunged into the midnight darkness of the Middle Ages, there arose men like Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome, and Martin Luther, who said No to the laws of earth’s mighty nations, and purchased anew,—by throwing themselves again into the jaws of death,—that liberty of conscience that has blessed the world for more than a hundred years.AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.1

When “Charles, the fifth of the same, by the grace of God emperor elect of the Romans, always august, king of Spain, of the two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Hungary, of Dalmatia, of Croatia, etc.; archduke of Austria, duke of Burgundy, count of Hapsburg, of Flanders, of the Tyrol,” etc., etc., had issued an edict against the humble Luther, in which he charged him with having “rushed like a madman on our holy church and attempted to destroy it by books overflowing with blasphemy,” and with “setting aside all authority,” and with being “but Satan himself under the form of a man,” and demanding that “on the expiration of his safe conduct, immediate recourse be had to effectual measures to check his furious rage,“—when all this and more had become the law of the empire, Luther addressed this letter to the man of many titles:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.2

God, who is the searcher of hearts, is my witness, that I am ready most earnestly to obey your majesty, in honor or in dishonor, in life or in death, and with no exception save the Word of God, by which man lives. In all the affairs of this present life, my fidelity shall be unshaken, for here to lost or gain is of no consequence to salvation. But when eternal interests are concerned, God wills not that man shall submit unto man. For such submission in spiritual matters is real worship, and ought to be rendered solely to the Creator. ^{1D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, Book VII, Chap. 11.}AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.3

And, then, faithful to himself and his God, and in the face of the empire, he continued to all Germany and the world with what the edict declared were “books overflowing with heresy.”AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.4

Later, when a new edict was proclaimed, prohibiting the preaching of any other doctrines except the dogmas of Rome, the Reformers stood up in the face of the law of the empire and said:—AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.5

We are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive preaching of his only word, such as is contained in the biblical books of the Old and New Testaments, without adding anything thereto that is contrary to it.... For these reasons most dear lords, uncles, cousins and friends, we earnestly entreat you to weigh carefully our grievances and our motives. If you do not yield to our request, we PROTEST by these presents, before God, our only Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer, and who will one day be our Judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and for our people, neither consent nor adhere in any measure whatsoever to the proposed decree in any thing that is contrary to God, to his holy word, to our right conscience [and], to the salvation of our souls. ^{2Id, Book XIII, chap. 6.}AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.6

And what shall we more say, for the time would fail us to tell of Tyndale and Latimer, and Ridley and Knox, and Bunyan and Wesley in the Old World, and Roger Williams and Holmes also, and the Baptists and others in the New, who, through faith, subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, and stopped the hand of persecution. They were stoned, they were scourged, they were burned, were slain with the sword, they wandered in deserts and in mountains, and in the dens and caves of the earth. All these have obtained a good report and the Protestant world to-day applauds these violators of law from Daniel in Babylon to Roger Williams in America. More than this, they declare that their courage and faithfulness in violating human law has bequeathed to the world the liberty of conscience so long enjoyed.AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.7

But the enemies of Daniel said, “Daniel ... regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed.” Or, in other words, Daniel is an anarchist. The enemies of Shaddrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, said; “These men, O king, have not regarded thee; they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.8

The Sabbath association and the law and order league of Jerusalem and “all the best people” in Israel charged the Son of God with being a “malefactor,” and said, “We have a law and by that law he ought to die.”AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.9

Luther was charged in the emperor’s edict with having “incessantly urged the people to revolt, schism, war, murder, robbery, incendiarism,” etc. Bunyan, from the standpoint of his cotemporaries, was a “lawless fellow.” Roger Williams, in the eyes of the “best people” of his time, was one who was attempting “to subvert the fundamental State and government of the country.” Thus it has ever been. One generation murders its prophets, and the next builds their monuments. A prophet is not without honor save in his own country and time. The historian of his own day records that the faithful reformer was a malefactor, but it is chiseled on the monuments of a later period that he was a martyr.AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.10

Our own day is no exception to this rule. The sectarian press of the popular religious denominations of the country, with a single exception, indorse the imprisonment of Seventh-day Adventists for Sunday labor, and, like all the persecutors of the past, deny that they are the victims of persecution, or that there is any conscientious principle involved. To this point we will address ourselves in our next issue.AMS December 6, 1894, page 379.11

“Back Page” American Sentinel 9, 48, p. 384.

ATJ

EMBOLDENED by the indifference of the people, the priests of Rome are to-day denying that “the church” ever persecuted. The Inquisition, it is asserted, was a civil or political tribunal rather than an ecclesiastical court, and that “religion had nothing to do with the massacre” of St. Bartholomew’s day in France, but that “Coligny and his fellow Huguenots were slain not on account of their creed, but exclusively on account of their alleged treasonable designs.”—Faith of Our Fathers, page 298.AMS December 6, 1894, page 384.1

BUT be it understood that where Rome rules, “heresy” is treason. Rome’s denials and apologies are alike disingenuous. She charges treason and means by it dissent from the dogmas of popery. She talks patronizingly of religious liberty when she means only freedom to believe and practice as “the church” teaches. Cardinal Gibbons says: “A man enjoys religious liberty when he possesses the free right of worshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience, and of practicing a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God.” “This religious liberty,” the cardinal says, “is the true right of every man.” This sounds well; but Rome claims for herself a divine commission to say what is a “right conscience,” and consequently, authority to determine when any man is entitled to freedom of faith and practice. Rome is, and always has been, the foe of genuine liberty, both civil and religious; for “Rome never changes.” The Roman Catholic Church of Dominic and Innocent III. is the Roman Catholic Church of the silver-tongued Gibbons and of the crafty Leo XIII.AMS December 6, 1894, page 384.2

W. T. GIBSON, a Seventh-day Adventist, of Everett, Mass., was recently arrested at the instigation of the mayor, for selling merchandise in his store on Sunday. He appeared in his own defense and pleaded not guilty to the charge of violating the Lord’s day. We will favor our readers next week with his plea which is good, because the Lord, according to his promise, spoke through him words which his adversaries could neither gainsay nor resist. He was, however, convicted and sentenced to pay fine and costs or go to jail. He appealed his case, and we hope to give our readers the results of the appeal in our next issue.AMS December 6, 1894, page 384.3

November 29, 1894

December 13, 1894