THE Western Catholic News (Chicago), in a recent issue, condemned the persecution of Seventh-day Adventists in Tennessee; but with a view to convincing seventh-day observers that they were in error in observing the seventh day instead of the first day, the News attempted to quote Scripture in support of Sunday observance.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.1

Under date of June 20, the SENTINEL called the attention of the News to a number of standard Catholic authorities which positively declared that there was no scriptural authority for Sunday observance. The News acknowledges the authorities quoted, but makes this astonishing explanation of the difficulty in its issue of June 29:—AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.2

Yes, we cheerfully publish all the proofs adduced by the SENTINEL, and we recognize them as good for the purpose used in every instance. Military strategy in war times suggested the policy of the Federal army temporarily occupying stockades and fortifications erected by the enemy—as long as they were useful as a means of destroying said enemy, but to be demolished later. So it is with the authors from which the SENTINEL quotes.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.3

What an admission! The News here deliberately acknowledges that it is the policy of Roman Catholic authors to solemnly advocate a position which they believe to be false and which they expect later to oppose. The News admits that the papacy is treacherous, that it will deliberately deceive, and that the positions taken in its official publications in some cases are directly opposed to the real position of that church, and that these positions are taken for the purpose of deceiving and destroying the enemy (non-Catholics). No Protestant, no Orangeman, no A. P. A. has ever brought against the Roman Catholic Church a more damaging charge.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.4

But we want our readers to sense the gravity of the situation. That they may the better do this we republish some of the authorities brought to the attention of the News, and which it declares are pious papal lies, means which justify an end. Here is one from the Catholic Mirror, of Sept. 9, 1893. The quotation occurs in a series of four editorials, which appeared in that paper, Sept. 2, 9, 16 and 23, 1893, and afterwards published in pamphlet form by the Mirror Publishing Company. This pamphlet has passed through five editions and is still advertised by the Mirror. Here is the quotation:—AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.5

Thus, it is impossible to find in the New Testament the slightest interference by the Saviour, or his apostles, with the original Sabbath, but, on the contrary, an entire acquiescence in the original arrangement; nay, a plenary indorsement by him, whilst living; and an unvaried, active participation in the keeping of that day and no other by the apostles, for thirty years after his death, as the Acts of the Apostles has abundantly testified to us.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.6

Hence the conclusion is inevitable; viz., that of those who follow the Bible as their guide, the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists have the exclusive weight of evidence on their side, whilst the biblical Protestant has not a word in self-defense for his substitution of Sunday for Saturday.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.7

Now let it be known that the Western Catholic News charges the Catholic Mirror with soberly, deliberately and persistently publishing this scriptural deduction while secretly believing it to be false. Bear in mind that the SENTINEL does not charge the cardinal’s organ with thus wickedly lying regarding a sacred subject; let it be kept constantly in mind that the terrible charge is made by the Western Catholic News.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.8

Here is another quotation to which we called the attention of the News:—AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.9

Q. Is the observance of Sunday, as the day of rest, a matter clearly laid down in Scripture?AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.10

A. It certainly is not; and yet all Protestants consider the observance of this particular day as essentially necessary to salvation. To say, we observe the Sunday because Christ rose from the dead on that day, is to say we act without warrant of Scripture; and we might as well say that we should rest on Thursday because Christ ascended to heaven on that day, and rested in reality from the work of redemption.—“A Doctrinal Catechism,” by Rev. Stephen Keenan, p. 352.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.11

Again, we call the reader’s attention to the fact that the News says the writer of this, Rev. Stephen Keenan, was lying when he wrote it, and that Cardinal McCloskey, the imprimatur, knew when he licensed the publication of this book, that he was licensing the publication of what he believed to be a lie written for the purpose of deceiving non-Catholics; and further, when P. J. Kennedy’s Excelsior Catholic Publishing House, New York, published the work, the managers knew they were publishing an exegesis of Scripture that was absolutely false. This be it remembered, is the charge made by the News, not by the SENTINEL.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.12

The following quotation from page 111 of Cardinal Gibbons’ work, “Faith of Our Fathers,” was one of the quotations before the editor of the News, when he made that startling charge of Jesuitical deception, quoted at the beginning of this article:—AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.13

But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.14

The Western Catholic News says that the Bible does authorize the sanctification of Sunday and the secularization of the Sabbath, and that Cardinal Gibbons believes the same; and that he has only published this falsehood for the purpose of deceiving, and that at the strategic moment he will destroy this theological ambuscade and build up again the position which he is now, by means of this Jesuitical deception, laboring to destroy. Once more we repeat that we do not ourselves bring this grave charge against the cardinal; we have believed that he and the other authorities referred to were sincere in these statements. We quoted them, however, not as proofs of fact, but as confessions offered after the facts had been otherwise indisputably proven.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.15

The prophet Daniel predicted the rise of a power that would “crush the saints of the Most High” (Douay Version), and “think to change times and the law.” (R.V.) Daniel 7:25.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.16

History, both ecclesiastical and secular, witness to the fact that an attempted change in the Sabbath command of “the law,” was made in the third century by that church which later became known as the Roman Catholic Church. If every Catholic authority in the world denied that the papacy had attempted to change the Sabbath contrary to Scripture, instead of acknowledging it, this would not change the fact. The SENTINEL simply quotes these Roman Catholic utterances as the confession of one already proven guilty.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.17

But to return to the main question: When a Roman Catholic editor deliberately and unblushingly declares that it is the settled policy of the Roman Catholic Church, in waging war on non-Catholics, to teach one thing publicly while privately holding the opposite view, how can he or his church expect the American people to believe the church when it asserts that it is in favor of religious freedom, and if it should ever get control in the United States it would not use its position to oppress non-Catholics? The Catholic Church in the United States is just now loudly proclaiming its loyalty to the American principle of religious freedom. It is declaring that prejudice against it is wholly unjustifiable, in view of its repeated assertion that it is in accord with the American idea of separation of Church and State. But many of us who have studied the history of the papacy were convinced that it was a part of the papal policy to deceive its opponent with pleasant face and fair promises until the opportune moment came to strike the fatal blow.AMS July 25, 1895, page 233.18

The editor of the Western Catholic News, who ought to know, voluntarily declares that this is the policy of the papacy. And, besides, the Western Watchman, of St. Louis, another Roman Catholic paper, in its issue of July 11, has decided that the moment has arrived to “uncover” ^{1See page 235.} on the question of religious freedom and to announce that if the Roman Catholic Church ever obtains power in the United States that it will compel all Protestants and non-Catholics to remove their hats when a Roman Catholic procession passes on the streets. However, we are persuaded that these two Catholic journals “uncovered” a little too soon. But be that as it may, from this on, if the Western Catholic News is not promptly repudiated by the Roman Catholic Church, no Roman Catholic will have the right to charge non-Catholics with misrepresenting the Catholic Church by charging it with duplicity—with deliberately lying for the purpose of deceiving and destroying an enemy.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.1

Now let the reader turn and read the editorial, previously referred to, from the Western Watchman, page 235, and learn from that Catholic organ the kind of religious liberty Protestants will enjoy when the papacy gets control in this country.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.2

“A ‘Nuisance’ in Tennessee” American Sentinel 10, 30, p. 234.

ATJ

SECTION 2289 of the Code of Tennessee forbids the carrying on of the common avocations of life on Sunday, works of real necessity and charity only excepted, under penalty of $3, to be recovered by “one-half to the person who will sue for the same” before a justice of the peace. Nothing is said in the statute about public or private work. All work is forbidden “except work of necessity or charity.”AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.1

This was all the Sunday law that Tennessee had until a few years since, a Seventh-day Adventist in Henry County, Tenn., was indicted for nuisance; it being contended that whereas a single act of Sunday work was punishable only under the statute, a repetition of such offense became a nuisance and was indictable. This view of the matter was sustained by the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the fact that that same tribunal had previously held that barbering on Sunday was not indictable, and that to so hold would be “a far-fetched and strained interpretation of the law,” and of the word “nuisance.”AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.2

In the several cases tried in Western Tennessee under this decision (for we cannot say that they were under the statute), the idea that it required a repetition of an offense to constitute a nuisance, was consistently kept in view. As stated in these columns, June 13, Judge Swiggart held in Henry County, January, 1893, that “it is not an indictable offense for a man to perform one act on Sunday against the statute.” And in a particular case in which the proof was that the defendant had worked in his garden on one Sunday, and that he had “piled chunks” in his clearing on another Sunday, Judge Swiggart charged that if the proof showed only two acts of Sunday work, it would not be sufficient to establish such a succession of acts as to constitute a nuisance.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.3

But as previously stated in these columns, Judge Parks, of the 17th Tennessee Circuit, takes a very different view of the “law,” as made by the Supreme Court, and holds that a single act of public work is indictable and punishable as a nuisance. At the recent term in Rhea County, he charged as follows:—AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.4

GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: The defendant is charged in the indictment with carrying on the common avocations of life on Sunday, the same not being acts of necessity or charity. To this charge a plea of not guilty has been entered, and this makes the issue which you are impaneled and sworn to try.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.5

It is a violation of the laws of the State for any person to carry on any of the common avocations of life on Sunday by doing secular work of any kind, works of real necessity or charity excepted. The gist of the offense consists in doing work of such character or in such manner as amounts to a public nuisance. A nuisance is defined by law to be that which works hurt, inconvenience or damage to the public, or that is injurious to public morals.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.6

To constitute the offense charged in this indictment it is not necessary for the State to show that any person was actually disturbed by the work. It is sufficient if it be shown that the acts which the law holds as illegal and forbidden were done in such a public manner as to be open to the observation of the public. The law regards the carrying on of common work on Sunday as having a tendency to corrupt public morals, and regards the example as pernicious and contrary to good order, the well-being of society, and public policy—provided such work is not of real necessity or charity and done in a public way; that is, where it is open to the observation of the public.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.7

Ordinarily, a single act of any kind, which, if repeated and continued would amount to a nuisance (such as profanity, etc.), is not indictable. This rule applies to cases of the kind now on trial. If a person does a single act of work, which is not continued to that extent, or which is not done under such circumstances as to amount to a nuisance as already defined, he would not be guilty. But the Supreme Court has held that in profanity cases (for instance) a single oath, either by its terms, or the circumstances under which it is uttered, may amount to a nuisance. Precisely the same rule applies to a case of the kind now on trial. A single act of work, done under such circumstances as to amount to a nuisance, is indictable and punishable as such. A man may do such work as he sees fit in private and the law will take no cognizance of it as a nuisance. But when he does the common work of life on Sunday (acts of necessity or charity excepted), and does it in such a public manner as to be open to the observation of the public, the law regards it as prejudicial to public morals and indictable as a nuisance, whether it be a single act or whether it be repeated and continued from Sunday to Sunday. A different rule would allow a person to work all day on Sunday under such circumstances as would amount to a most flagrant desecration of the day and escape punishment on the ground that it was only a single act, etc.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.8

It will be noticed that in this charge the judge attempts to refute the claim that a single act is not indictable as a nuisance. He affirms that it is, and says:—AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.9

A different rule would allow a person to work all day on Sunday under such circumstances as would amount to a most flagrant desecration of the day and escape punishment on the ground that it was only a single act.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.10

In this the judge utterly ignores the existence of any statute on the subject, or of a statutory penalty. True, a person might work all day on Sunday and escape indictment on the ground that it was only a single act, but he could not escape the fine provided by the statute, if anybody was willing to sue for the same. His honor thus assumes that the safeguards thrown around Sunday by the legislature are utterly inadequate and that the courts must protect it by the imposition of very materially heavier penalties. This is remarkable enough in any event, but it is the more so when we remember that Judge Parks has, in several ways, given very decided evidence of sympathy with those who are persecuted under this very remarkable so-called Sunday law.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.11

Little effort was made in the recent cases in Rhea County to prove more than one act of work on Sunday, and several of the accused were convicted for a single act and for very trivial acts; acts which taken alone, that is apart from the well-known practice of the defendants to keep another day and to work on Sunday, could scarcely have been held to amount to a “flagrant desecration of the day.” It seems clear that both judge and jury were influenced in this matter by the religious views of the defendants, that is, that they allowed the fact of the religious views of the Adventists to operate against them, and this notwithstanding the fact that the judge several times warned the jury against this. But it only shows how impossible it is to eliminate religious prejudices from the administration of a statute which owes its very existence to religious dogma and to the tendency of the majority to coerce the minority in matters of conscience.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.12

If Judge Parks’ view is to prevail, and if it be the correct one, as a legal proposition, then the decision of the Supreme Court has entirely superseded the statute enacted by the legislature. If a more flagrant violation of constitutional law can be found anywhere in the history of any American State, we would be glad to be referred to it. For, unless Judge Parks greatly errs in his interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court, that eminent tribunal has usurped the function of the legislative branch of the government, and has both repealed and enacted law.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.13

But we do not want any reader to get the idea that we regard the Sunday statute of Tennessee as made by the legislature of the State as any better in principle than that made by the decisions of the Supreme Court. The principle is precisely the same so far as the right of the State to regulate sabbath observance goes. All such legislation in Tennessee is unconstitutional, whether enacted by the legislature or by the Supreme Court; and we believe that legal minds in that State are fast coming to see it in that light.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.14

“The Church and Citizenship” American Sentinel 10, 30, pp. 234, 235.

ATJ

THE Church is an association of Christians. The work of the Church is not to make men good citizens, but to spread the light of the gospel, by which men are made Christians. A Christian is necessarily a good citizen, but good citizenship is not the aim of the gospel. If it were, it would fall infinitely short of accomplishing what it does to-day. A Christian must be a good citizen; but a good citizen may be no Christian at all.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.1

The foundation of Christianity is faith,—“the faith of Jesus.” The foundation of citizenship is respect for the rights of others. Christianity deals with the thoughts and intents of the heart; citizenship deals only with the outward deportment. The majesty of the law may secure in an individual an outward regard for the rights of others, but it cannot make right the thoughts and intents of the heart.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.2

He whose outward deportment does not correspond with the desires and intents of his heart is a hypocrite. The law can change a man’s deportment, but not the man himself. When it essays to change character, it succeeds, if at all, only in making men hypocrites.AMS July 25, 1895, page 234.3

To bring the force of the government to bear upon the consciences of men is therefore the worst possible way to attempt to make good citizens; for good citizens are not identical with hypocrites. The man who yields to force and regards not the dictates of his own conscience, will not be likely to regard the consciences of others. No reform in character, therefore, can come through the ballot box; but only a change in the administration of government. The reform that is to make men better must be wrought by the grace of God. The one uplifting and transforming power that can be brought to bear upon men in this world is the power of the gospel.AMS July 25, 1895, page 235.1

It is the work of the Church to “preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16:15. This includes ministering to the physical as well as to the spiritual wants of mankind. See James 1:27; Matthew 25:31-46. And when the Church is doing this, her legitimate, God-appointed work, she is doing all that it is possible for her to do toward making men good citizens.AMS July 25, 1895, page 235.2

“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 30, p. 240.

ATJ

NATIONAL REFORMERS and many other professed Protestants are laboring to amend the National Constitution so that it shall expressly recognize Jesus Christ as the Sovereign of this nation. To all such we recommend the careful reading of the editorial from the Western Watchman, on page 235.AMS July 25, 1895, page 240.1

Be it remembered that these National Reformers have petitioned Roman Catholics to aid them in overthrowing the “atheistical” Constitution of the United States, and in building one that should recognize Jesus Christ as the Sovereign Ruler of the United States. When the Roman Catholics have gotten the same control in this country that they now have in South America, these National Reformers will have no one to blame but themselves if the Roman Catholics attempt to compel them to bow down to a bread-god sovereign as they are now doing with Protestants in Ecuador.AMS July 25, 1895, page 240.2

NOT long since, a Methodist minister and editor in Brazil was persecuted by Roman Catholics because he failed to bow to the “host” which was being carried in procession on the streets. The AMERICAN SENTINEL joins with Methodists in condemning this persecution. Seventh-day Adventists are persecuted in Tennessee, Maryland, and other States, in some cases by Methodists, because they refuse to bow to laws enacted to compel the recognition of Sunday as the sabbath. The Roman Catholic believes that the consecrated bread is the real Christ. Methodists believe it is a false Christ. Methodists believe that Sunday is the real Sabbath. Seventh-day Adventists believe it is a false sabbath. There is absolutely no difference between an attempt on the part of Roman Catholics to compel Methodists to act as if they regarded a portion of bread as holy, and an attempt on the part of Methodists to compel Seventh-day Adventists to act as if they regarded a certain portion of time as holy.AMS July 25, 1895, page 240.3

Seventh-day Adventists condemn the former as persecution. Will the Methodists condemn the latter as persecution?AMS July 25, 1895, page 240.4

SOME one, signing himself “M.,” has contributed an article to the Dickson (Tenn.) Enterprise, in which he attempts to break the force of biblical precedents for violating bad law, cited by the Adventists. He says:—AMS July 25, 1895, page 240.5

Ah, well, say they, if the civil conflicts with the divine, then it is our Christian duty to obey God rather than man. We admit this proposition to be true in the abstract, and here lies the danger of deceiving the simple-minded. It is a “catchy” phrase. But who is to construe the law? Who says our Sunday statutes conflict with God’s law? Whose opinion shall prevail, those of a handful of fanatics, or the combined intelligence and morality of the Christian world?AMS July 25, 1895, page 240.6

What an argument! Do majorities infallibly decide what is and what is not in conflict with God’s law? If so, all the martyrs were fanatics who should have gracefully submitted to the majority, rather than court persecution by acting contrary to the “combined intelligence” of the ruling majority. Our readers will be the more surprised when we inform them that this man is master in chancery and a Presbyterian. Sufferings of Presbyterian martyrs! Think of a Presbyterian, whose ancestors,—only a “handful,” so bravely and persistently violated the statutes enacted and enforced by the “combined intelligence and morality of the Christian world”—the papacy, pleading majorities! If majorities are to decide questions of conscience, then Romanism was right in persecuting Presbyterians in days gone by, and is right now in persecuting Protestants in Roman Catholic countries.AMS July 25, 1895, page 240.7

And now that the reader may refresh himself with a courageous, consistent, Christian utterance on these Tennessee persecutions, let him turn and read the letter from a Baptist minister on page 235.AMS July 25, 1895, page 240.8

July 18, 1895

August 1, 1895