The same church further declares that she is the only force in the world that can pronounce the “pax vobixcum,” that can command peace in the coming storm. Is she right?AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.2

We propose to deal with this matter in a most practical way; first, by asking and answering the question, What is the record of the Roman Catholic Church as regards rioting and mob violence?AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.3

The church of Rome was born, both as regards doctrine and supremacy, in riot and bloodshed. The councils that established her creed were scenes of mob violence, second only to the French Revolution. ^{1For a condensed grouping of the testimony of the standard historical authorities, descriptive of the character and spirit of the early councils which established the creed of the Roman Catholic Church, see “Two Republics,” chapters 14-19. Review and Herald Publishing Co., Battle Creek, Mich.}AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.4

The supremacy of the church of Rome was acquired by the cruel, rapacious destruction of the Herulian, Vandal, and Ostrogoth kingdoms, by such papal champions as the savage Clovis. ^{2See “Two Republics,” chapter 22, and “Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation,” chapter 7. Review and Herald Publishing Co., Battle Creek, Mich.}AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.5

Her creed and supremacy have been perpetuated by violence and bloodshed. One of the many proofs of this statement is found in the murderous marches of Roman Catholic mobs against the Albigenses. We quote from Catholic authority: “Innocent [III.] proclaimed a crusade or holy war, with indulgences, against Albigensian heretics, and requested Philip II., the king of France, to put himself at its head. 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.... The war opened in 1209, with the siege of Béziers and the massacre of its inhabitants.... The war lasted many years and became political; in its progress great atrocities were committed. Languedoc was laid desolate and the provincial civilization destroyed. Peace was made in 1227 and the tribunal of the Inquisition established soon after.” ^{3A Catholic Dictionary, “Authorized American Edition,” Benziger Brothers, New York: “Printers to the Holy Apostolic See,” 1893. Article, “Albigenses.”}AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.6

Another historical event bearing on this matter is the massacre of St. Bartholomew. On this occasion, according to the Roman Catholic historian, Bossuit, twenty-five thousand Huguenots were butchered by Roman Catholic mobs. And the “infallible” pope, Gregory XIII., stamped the approval of the church upon the fiendish act, for “as soon as the news was received in Rome, the canons of St. Angelo were fired, a solemn Te Deum was sung, and the pope struck a medal bearing on the one side his own portrait, and on the other a picture rudely representing the massacre.” ^{4“Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,” Funk and Wagnall’s Co., New York, 1891. Article, “The Massacred of St. Bartholomew’s Day.”}AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.7

With these facts and multitudes more that stain the pages of human history and are patent to all the world, the Roman Catholic Church which the Word of God calls the “mystery of lawlessness,” ^{52 Thessalonians 2:7, (R.V.)} has the brazen effrontery to proclaim herself the one and only available power that can control the lawless in the soon-coming social revolution.AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.8

There are those who will attempt to apologize for this lawlessness by saying that it was the result of the times, and that civilization has mollified the church, that the church of to-day, and especially in America, is vastly different from the church of the Middle Ages.AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.9

For the benefit of such we will narrow the discussion to the Catholic Church in the United States in 1895. Here and now the church is on her good behavior. Here she is by every means in her power attempting to pose as the author and conservator of both civil and religious liberty, and the only power that can save the country from social and political ruin in the approaching crisis.AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.10

But just at the time when she was so eloquently arguing for these pretensions, an event occurred at Savannah, Ga., demanding an explanation. This event was a determined attempt on the part of a Roman Catholic mob to kill an ex-priest by the name of Slattery, who was advertised to speak in that city against Catholicism, February 26. We know nothing of Mr. Slattery. The Catholic Church gives him a bad name, and says the riot was due to this fact; but this does not palliate the crime, nor is it an excuse, for the same mob violence has greeted Father Chiniquy both in this country and Canada, and no attempt has been made to brand him as an immoral man before he left the church.AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.11

The following abridged description of the riot is from the Sun, which Roman Catholics will not accuse of misrepresentation:—AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.12

SAVANNAH, Feb. 26.—For five hours to-night the city was in charge of a mob and on the verge of a religious riot. The entire white military force of the city, except the artillery, was on duty.AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.13

There are ten infantry companies in the militia and the Georgia Hussars, the latter being dismounted. The actions of a mob estimated at 4,000, the greater part being Catholics, caused their summons to duty....AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.14

For three days it had been apparent that trouble was brewing, because the city was placarded with notices that ex-Priest Slattery and his wife, described as an ex-nun, would lecture here to-night on Catholicism.AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.15

Members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians at once took steps to prevent their appearance here. Petitions were circulated asking Mayor Myers to refuse to permit Slattery to appear....AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.16

“I cannot stop this man from lecturing,” said the mayor, who is a Hebrew, “but I can prevent disorder and I will do so. If the police have not sufficient force to do so, the military will be appealed to. Riot will not be tolerated.” ...AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.17

The lecturer had hardly begun before brick-bats and cobblestones began to rain in through the windows. The police had closed all the heavy inside shutters, and this saved the audience from injury, only two or three persons being injured by flying glass....AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.18

Before nine o’clock the mob had grown to probably between 3,000 and 4,000 persons. Window after window in the Masonic Temple was smashed. Cries of “Kill him,” “Down with Slattery,” “Death to the renegade,” were heard. Chief McDermott summoned the mayor....AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.19

The mob hissed at the police and hooted at their orders to disperse. The military alarm, eleven taps on all fire bells in the city, was sent in. When it sounded the mob derided.AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.20

“Bring on your military,” some of the leaders shouted. “They can’t save Slattery.” ...AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.21

The military were deployed so as to drive the mob back and to form a hollow square about the hall. While a consultation between the commanding officers and the mayor was held. Capt. John R. Dillon, one of the best-known Catholics of the city, tendered his service as a peacemaker.AMS April 4, 1895, page 105.22

He brought Vicar-General Cafferty, who is in charge of the diocese in the absence of Bishop Becker, to the scene of trouble. The vicar-general addressed part of the mob:—AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.1

“This man Slattery,” said he, “can do your church no harm.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.2

“You are bringing disgrace upon your religion by your conduct here to-night. It can meet but with condemnation. I plead with you to disperse and go home. Don’t render it necessary to shed blood here to-night.”AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.3

A few of those whom he addressed shook the vicar-general by the hand and left, but the majority stood still. Major Maldrem and others urged the mob to disperse, but to no purpose.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.4

Later, repeated attempts were made both to burn and blow up the Masonic Temple where the lecture was held, and all this by the people of the church that claims to be the author and preserver of both religious liberty and public order.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.5

Ever since this lawless occurrence, the Roman Catholic press has labored to explain it, and it is these comments that we wish to notice briefly. All started out to write editorials condemning the outrage, which should accord with the claim of the church as the author and conservator of religious liberty and civil order, but, with one exception, they all, so far as we have read, close with a practical justification of the action of the mob.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.6

The Monitor of San Francisco, closes its editorial comment of March 2, thus:—AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.7

The trouble is Catholics have been too tolerant and too good natured, and this lesson of Savannah will not be without beneficial results.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.8

Again, under date of March 9, the editor of the Monitor replying to the editor of the Redlands (Cal.) Citrograph, Mr. Craig, who suggested to Catholics that they should appeal to the civil law for redress and not to violence; after asking Mr. Craig what he would do if some Catholic priest should talk about the Congregational Church as Mr. Slattery does about the Catholic Church, writes thus:—AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.9

Why, if you didn’t go out and shoot the blackguard in his tracks, is there a man, woman or child in Redlands, Scipio Craig, that would not have the right to call you a coward and poltroon?AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.10

Other Catholic papers have advised that instead of appealing to violence it would be better to prevail upon the civil authorities to prohibit such lectures, and others still advise that persons be stationed at the door of the place of meeting to get the names of all who attend, and then they could be dealt with in an appropriate manner later.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.11

As to the responsibility for the mob, the church has been compelled to take one of two positions; either that she did all she could to prevent the violence and failed, or that she connived at or directly incited the riot. It must be evident to all that either position would be damaging to the present plans of the church. If she did all she could to prevent the riot, it is clearly demonstrated that she cannot control her own mobs, and her bid for the job of controlling all the mobs of all the world is made to appear in a most ridiculous light. If she connived at the creation of the mob or directly incited it, then she is the enemy of free speech and the author of mob violence as of old.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.12

She has chosen the first horn of the dilemma, and an official statement has been promulgated by the National President of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, Judge J. P. O’Connor, and published in the Western Watchman (St. Louis), of March 11, in which it is stated that efforts were put forth to prevent violence. And the Catholic Review, of March 9, says that Vicar-General Cafferty addressed the mob, urging them to disperse; but to no purpose, as seen by the Sun’s account of the riot previously quoted.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.13

The Catholic Mirror now comes forward to explain why Vicar-General Cafferty and the Hibernian Order could not control the Catholic mob. In its issue of March 9, the Mirror says:—AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.14

Protestants cannot understand the excitement among Catholics over lectures like those of Slattery. To the Protestant mind religion means holding a certain set of opinions, but the idea of getting excited about them when they are attacked, and especially of dying for them, is to them inconceivable. Of the Catholic attitude toward the faith they have not an idea. To Catholics, however, the faith is the dearest of all things, and not only is the true Catholic ready to give up his life for it, but at any attack upon it or upon the ministers of his religion, or the saintly women who devote themselves to a religious calling, the indignation is so great that with some, especially Catholics of the simpler sort [like the editor of the Monitor], a kind of frenzy ensues, and hence the blind and savage wrath exhibited by the mob at Savannah. Thus some allowance must be made for these good people, who, in hearing the church assailed, were aroused to the same pitch of fury that a loving son experiences when the honor of his mother is besmirched.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.15

And this is the reason why the Roman Catholic Church cannot control her own mobs. But in saying that Catholics exhibit “a kind of frenzy,” a “blind and savage wrath,” a “fury” when the church is criticised, is to confess that “these good people,” including the editor of the Monitor, are not Christians. For Peter says of Christ, that “when he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously;” and in doing this he “suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.” ^{61 Peter 2:20-23.} And Christ himself says:—AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.16

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. ^{7Matthew 5:11, 12.}AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.17

When Jesus told the truth about the corrupt church of his day, the record states that the Jews were “filled with madness;” ^{8Luke 6:11.} and the Lord explained this by saying to them, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth.” ^{9John 8:44.} Yes, neighbor Mirror, we do understand “the excitement among Catholics.”AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.18

Thus we find that the Roman Catholic Church in America, in 1895, is true to her nature. That she is possessed of the same “frenzy” that was exhibited in the councils which created her creed; the same “blind and savage wrath” that characterized her conquering marches to universal supremacy; the same “fury” that perpetuated her power by massacring Waldenses, Albigenses, and Huguenots who told the truth about her.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.19

And it is this “mystery of lawlessness,” this “lawless one,” that was born, reared, and perpetuated through violence, that now confesses that she is unable to control the “frenzy,” “savage wrath,” and “fury” of her own mobs,—it is this church that now declares that she is the only power that can control the mobs of the world, that is, that can pronounce the “pax vobiscum” over a world in anarchy.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.20

And now we appeal to the rulers and people of America and the world to turn a deaf ear to the preposterous claims of the “mystery of lawlessness,” for God himself being judge, she can neither speak peace to the tempest-tossed soul nor the storm-rent State. And to those who are honestly trusting in her or her daughters for salvation, God says in his infinite love: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” Revelation 18:4, 5.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.21

“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.22

“The Sunday Law of Tennessee against Natural Right” American Sentinel 10, 14, pp. 106, 107.

ATJ

THE position of the courts in Tennessee in their relation to the Sunday law of that State, especially as affects observers of the seventh day, is certainly not a desirable one.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.1

In pronouncing judgment upon the Seventh-day Adventists convicted in Rhea County in the recent term of court, Judge Parks said in effect, as published in these columns two weeks ago, that his sympathies were with the defendants, but that he was compelled by his official oath to enforce the law as he found it, and not as he might wish to have it.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.2

In this connection his honor said: “If there were only one of them, he would be entitled not only to his belief, but to the exercise of that belief so long as in so doing he did not interfere with any natural right of his neighbor. A man cannot kill another and excuse himself by claiming that he believed he was carrying out God’s will in so doing, because this would deprive his victim of a natural right, viz., the enjoyment of life. Do the defendants, in keeping the seventh day and working on the first, thereby interfere with any natural right of their neighbors, or is it an artificial right created by statute?AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.3

This question admits of but one answer. The exclusive right claimed by Sunday-keepers is not a natural, but an artificial right, created by statute. It does not interfere with one man’s right to rest on Sunday because another man does not so rest. The “annoyance” and the “nuisance” is simply mental; it is of the same kind that might be experienced by the Protestant in seeing the Catholic make the sign of the cross, using holy water, or going to mass or confession. The “annoyance” is of the same kind as that felt by the Baptist seeing the pedo-Baptist practicing sprinkling, or vice versa. This was virtually conceded by Judge Parks in his summing up of the cases, when he said: “Sunday is, and for a long time has been, recognized by all Christian denominations as the Sabbath, and it is for this reason, no doubt, that the laws which protect that day have always been acquiesced in as constitutional.”AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.4

In his dictum in the King case, Judge Hammond admitted the same fact in the following language: “Sunday observance is so essentially a part of the same [the Christian] religion that it is impossible to rid our laws of it.”AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.5

This is equivalent to saying that notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee contained in the Tennessee Bill of Rights, the State of Tennessee and its courts have sustained laws giving preference to one form of religious worship over another. The language of Article 1 of the Bill of Rights is: “That no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.” That the Tennessee Sunday law is in violation of this provision, so far at least as observers of the seventh day are concerned, seems clear, and yet the court of last resort has not so held. The reason for this seems to be that individuals have not been considered, but that only organizations have been taken into consideration. In other words, that an individual to have any conscience which the law is bound to respect, must belong to some organization, and that before the law can show any preference for any form of worship, it must recognize some religious denomination and some denominational creed. This idea is certainly foreign to the spirit of American institutions, as it is also to the spirit of the gospel.AMS April 4, 1895, page 106.6

Another very pertinent question raised by Judge Parks is as follows: “Has any power but the divine will the right to establish any one day as Sabbath? If the day has been set apart by divine edict, but two or more persons honestly differ as to what day was appointed, can the dispute be settled by legislative enactment?”AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.1

His honor did not answer his own question in words, but it admits of but one answer. The question as to which day is the Sabbath is certainly a religious question, and clearly only the Divine Being has any right to say which day he himself appointed, and this he has said in no uncertain language; and it is because of obedience to this command that Seventh-day Adventists are to-day suffering imprisonment in Tennessee.AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.2

While perhaps not so designed, Judge Parks’ remarks are a fearful arraignment of the Sunday law of the State of Tennessee. In his official capacity and under his oath of office, the judge felt that he could not do otherwise than enforce the law, or that which the Supreme Court has said is the law; but his honor has placed himself upon record, unmistakably, as opposed to such law; and in this he is not alone. There is a strong sentiment in the State against such law, and against religious persecution under color of the law. The question is, Will the lawmakers of the State of Tennessee vindicate the honor of the State by repealing this iniquitous statute, or will they maintain the law as it stands and thus make it possible for irresponsible parties to oppress honest citizens and drive them from the State by enforcing such unjust law?AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.3

“Is Saturday the Seventh Day?” American Sentinel 10, 14, p. 107.

ATJ

THE Progressive Farmer, of Raleigh, Tenn., publishes in its issue of March 19, a very candid editorial entitled, “The Day of Rest.” We extract from it the following paragraph:—AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.1

The time-keepers and almanac manufacturers doubtless think they have it down right. But it is possible that some smart Aleck has slipped a cog. Certainly we ought to observe the seventh day as we are commanded, and if our present Sunday is the first day of the week, we ought to get right.AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.2

The last sentence states the truth honestly and pointedly, and is deserving of attention. We will start our investigation with the crucifixion. The 56th verse of the 23rd chapter of Luke reads thus: “And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” The next verse, the first verse of the 24th chapter, says: “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.”AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.3

From the above it is evident that the “Sabbath day according to the commandment,” in the time of Christ, and as late as the writing of the book of Luke, was the seventh day, or the day preceding the first day of the week.AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.4

No one will claim that so long as Jerusalem and the Jewish nation were preserved there was any chance of losing the identity of the seventh day or Sabbath.AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.5

After the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70, the Jews were scattered to the four winds, and from that day to this, they have been found in every nation under heaven. And nowhere and at no time has there been during these nineteen centuries any disagreement as to which day is the Sabbath or seventh day, among all these millions of scattered Jews. The Jews in China, Russia, Italy, France, England, Australia, and America, all keep the same seventh day. Since the seventh day has been thus providentially and infallibly preserved, it cannot be possible that the first day has been lost. It is impossible to preserve the seventh day and lose the first day. Hence, since our Saturday is the seventh day of the week, “our present Sunday is the first day of the week,” and every man, woman, and child, who is observing the first day, ought, if they desire like the editor of the Progressive Farmer, to obey God, to cease keeping the first day and commence “to observe the seventh day as we are commanded.”AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.6

Let us now view it from another side. Those who keep Sunday, say they do it in honor of the resurrection of Christ, who rose from the dead on the first day of the week. They claim that the practice of keeping the first day originated very early. They also acknowledge that Christian converts from the Jews continued to observe the seventh day, and all who know anything about the history of Christianity know that there was a conflict in the Church as to whether the first day or the seventh day should be observed. Constantine contributed to this controversy by issuing his famous edict in 321 A.D., commanding “that all judges, people of the cities, and artificers rest on the venerable day of the sun.” Later the Council of Laodicea anathematized those who observed the seventh day. Could it be possible that the day of the week could be lost when there was a severe controversy as to which was the proper day to observe?AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.7

The impossibility of losing a day is made apparent by asking if anyone remembers an instance where a whole family lost the day of the week? There are frequent cases where an individual makes this mistake, but invariably other members of the family will set him right. But should a whole family lose their reckoning their neighbors would correct them. And if a whole neighborhood should lose the day of the week, the adjoining neighborhoods would convince them of the error. Should a whole State or Province err in their reckoning, other State and Provinces would right them. And should all the people of a nation go to sleep, and thereby lose a day, other nations would convince them of their mistake. And should all the people of all the nations of all the world lose the same day (how absurd!), then the God of the universe, who made the Sabbath for man, who blessed and sanctified it at creation’s morn, and who recommended its observance in tones of thunder from Sinai’s flaming top, while the earth trembled, and who wrote it with his own finger on tables of stone, who gave the life of his only begotten Son to save man from the penalty of its violation, and it from the burdensome traditions of men,—would he not arise in his majesty and announce anew the day of sacred rest?AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.8

Is it not a little strange that men are satisfied that Sunday is the first day of the week, the day on which Christ rose,—so satisfied that they will enact laws to preserve it from desecration, and put seventh-day observers in prison for not observing it, and yet declare that they are not sure but we have lost a day, and therefore we are not sure that Saturday is the seventh day, and that Sunday is the first day?AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.9

Let every one who refuses to observe the seventh day as God commands for fear that time has been lost, stop and think what excuse he will give when summoned before the judgment bar of God. When asked why he did not observe the seventh day as commanded, it would devolve upon him to prove that the day was lost; and in order to prove that the day was lost, he would have to prove how it was lost, where it was lost, and when it was lost. And to prove how, where, and when the day was lost, would be to find the lost day, and when the lost day is thus found there is no lost day.AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.10

We sincerely hope that the editor of the Progressive Farmer and all who are like minded, will not be deceived by the illogical, impossible, unreasonable, and unscientific “lost time” idea.AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.11

“Would Not Observe Thursday or Friday” American Sentinel 10, 14, pp. 107, 108.

ATJ

AN interesting discussion of Sunday and Sunday laws is now in progress in the Martin Mail, of Martin, Tennessee. We publish this week a very valuable contribution to this discussion from the pen of Hon. William P. Tolley, an ex-senator of Tennessee.AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.1

One contributor, signing himself “Rex,” asks a defender of the prosecution of Seventh-day Adventists who signs himself “A Friend,” the question, If the law enforced the observance of Thursday or Friday, would you obey it? to which “A Friend” answers thus:—AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.2

Mr. Tolley, in his article [The Sabbath], condemns our courts for the punishment of Mr. Capps and others for Sunday violation of law. I justified the courts and gave my reason, which was an open violation, both of the law of the land and the law of God, and supported my argument by reference to Romans 13, which says, “Be subject to the laws that be,” etc. “Rex” wants to know if the law said keep Thursday or Friday, would I obey? I answer, no; for that would violate the Word of God.AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.3

Every religious bigot that ever beat, banished or burned a brother in the name of Christianity has tried to defend his cruelty by appealing to the thirteenth chapter of Romans. And at the same time every one of them would deny the application of the text to himself as does “A Friend,” in case he were the victim of a persecuting law.AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.4

None but a dishonest or superficial reader can fail to see that Paul exhorts men to obedience to “the powers that be” only in temporal matters as between man and man. Verses 6-8 of this chapter plainly teach this. There is no mention of the first four commandments of the Decalogue, which enjoin obedience to God. To say that Paul taught that men should obey laws which conflict with the laws of God, not only contradicts his teaching in this chapter, but it is to say that he taught one thing and practiced another, for he often suffered as the result of violating laws enacted by the “powers that be,” which conflicted with the laws of God.AMS April 4, 1895, page 107.5

But when “A Friend” says he would not obey a Tennessee law enforcing Thursday or Friday because such a law would violate the Word of God, he admits that the thirteenth chapter of Romans does not teach that a man should disobey God’s law in order to obey man’s law. In this he admits all that Seventh-day Adventists claim. Seventh-day Adventists declare that the law of Tennessee, which commands the observance of the first day while God commands the observance of the seventh day, is just as much in conflict with the law of God as would be the command of the State to observe the fifth or sixth day (Thursday or Friday) which “A Friend” says he would not obey. And no man can prove that it is not. Why can’t “A Friend” and all his friends see it? “Consistency, thou art a jewel!”AMS April 4, 1895, page 108.1

“Everlasting Punishment” American Sentinel 10, 14, p. 111.

ATJ

WE stated in the SENTINEL of March 14 that we did not believe the church dogma of “an eternal burning hell in which sinners writhe in indescribable agony throughout the endless ages of eternity.” With this statement in mind a correspondent asks us to explain Matthew 25:46, which reads as follows: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”AMS April 4, 1895, page 111.1

Our correspondent will notice that there is a difference between “everlasting punishment” and everlasting “agony,” misery, or torment. When the wicked are finally destroyed, it will be everlasting punishment, but not everlasting “agony.” Christ promises the righteous “life eternal.” Should they afterwards die, they would not enjoy “life eternal.” The fate of the wicked is “everlasting punishment” in opposition to “life eternal.” Death, the final punishment of the wicked, will be everlasting. Should they be resurrected at the end of a million years their punishment would not be everlasting; but if their death is everlasting, then their punishment is “everlasting punishment.”AMS April 4, 1895, page 111.2

“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 14, p. 112.

ATJ

THREE of the Seventh-day Adventists imprisoned at Dayton, Tenn., on the 8th of March, have served their term of imprisonment and are now at liberty. Three more will be released on the 15th inst., while the other two, including Elder Colcord, will not be released until May.AMS April 4, 1895, page 112.1

ON another page we print a petition which is being circulated at Dayton, Tenn., by well-disposed persons of the city, for the release of the imprisoned Adventists. It is addressed to the County Court of Rhea County, a body composed of the justices of the peace of the county. Some of these are known to be in favor of releasing the prisoners, but it is reported that fifteen are in favor of working them in the chain-gang as was done with the Adventists of Henry County a few years ago.AMS April 4, 1895, page 112.2

THE Western Watchman (Roman Catholic), of March 7, speaks thus of Father Chiniquy:—AMS April 4, 1895, page 112.3

Chiniquy, the octogenarian reprobate of Canada, has written a letter to Archbishop Fabre, of Montreal, requesting him to let him alone and to order his priests to let him alone. We doubt if any priest has troubled himself about the surly old sinner; but if any have, we think his request very reasonable. Why can’t these officious priests let these old braggart infidels alone? They bring the sacraments into contempt refusing them often to those who want them: and forcing them on those who won’t have them. This mad running after impenitent cut-throats and blasphemers is very unbecoming.AMS April 4, 1895, page 112.4

There is enough savagery in this editorial to burn a hundred heretics. And yet they tell us the Roman Catholic Church has experienced a change of heart since her palmy days of the Dark Ages.AMS April 4, 1895, page 112.5

THE following extract from the opinion of Judge Parks, rendered at the trial of the Seventh-day Adventists who are now in jail at Dayton, Tenn., for doing common labor on Sunday, presents the injustice of compulsory Sunday observance so forcibly that we wish to keep it prominently before the public:—AMS April 4, 1895, page 112.6

“But here we have a very respectable element of Christian believers who are honest, inoffensive, law-abiding people in all matters not conflicting with their sense of duty, who believe they are under divine command to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath. As a matter of abstract, individual right can they be required to observe another day also? Their position is not that of a person who claims that as a matter of personal liberty he has the right, if he chooses, to run an open saloon on Sunday, or to do any like act. That is not a matter of conscience—this is. They claim that it is not only their right, but their duty under divine command to observe the seventh day. Calling them “cranks” is no argument and has nothing to do with the question. If there were only one of them he would be entitled not only to his honest belief, but to the exercise of that belief, so long as in so doing he did not interfere with some natural right of his neighbors. A man cannot kill another and excuse himself on the ground that he believed he was carrying out God’s will in so doing, because this would deprive his victim of a natural right, viz.; the enjoyment of life.AMS April 4, 1895, page 112.7

“Do the defendants in keeping the seventh day and working on the first, thereby interfere with any natural right of their neighbors? Or is it an artificial right created by human law? Has any power but the divine will the right to establish any one day as the Sabbath? If the day has been appointed by divine edict, but two or more persons honestly and conscientiously differ as to what day was appointed, can the dispute be settled by legislative enactment? And shall one be given rights which are denied the other? Does might make right, and have the majority the right to dictate in matters purely of conscience?”AMS April 4, 1895, page 112.8

We are aware that the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that “this is a Christian nation” and cited Sunday laws as one of its sustaining proofs, but we appeal from the Supreme Court of the United States to the people of the United States, as did Abraham Lincoln when the Federal Court had decided that the negro “had no rights which the white man is bound to respect.” Let the American people seriously ponder the vital questions raised by Judge Parks, and remember that upon their answer hangs the destiny of American liberty, and through the influence of America, the liberties of the world.AMS April 4, 1895, page 112.9

March 28, 1895

April 11, 1895