AN interesting question in connection with the persecution of Seventh-day Adventists in Tennessee, is, What attitude should they now assume toward the law which forbids them to follow their usual vocations on Sunday? Should they yield to the law and thus secure immunity from further persecution? or should they violate the law as they have done hitherto, and suffer the penalty?AMS November 10, 1892, page 345.1

MANY will unhesitatingly answer that it is the duty of all men, and especially of all Christians, to obey the civil law; and that the Adventists are no exception; that they ought to obey the law as it exists; and if they think it unjust they have the privilege of endeavoring to secure its repeal or modification. This is substantially the position taken by the judge before whom the four men convicted in Henry County last May, were tried; and it would probably be the position taken by a large majority of men who have given the subject little thought. But is it the correct one?AMS November 10, 1892, page 345.2

MAN is not only a social being, having social relations and social duties, but he is likewise a moral being, having moral duties and moral obligations. In their social relations—that is in all things pertaining solely to their relations with their fellow-men,—the Creator has made men responsible to one another, not ultimately nor in a way to release them from moral responsibility, but in a way to enable men, by combination and organization, to secure, each at the hands of his fellows, the rights with which nature has endowed him. This is civil government; and the preservation or securing of natural rights is the extent of its legitimate jurisdiction. And in every age we find godly men refusing to yield obedience to civil rulers when they exceed their proper jurisdiction.AMS November 10, 1892, page 345.3

A NOTABLE instance of resistance to, or rather disobedience of, civil law when it conflicted with moral duty, is recorded in the third chapter of the prophecy of Daniel. The king, having set up a great image, commanded all the people to fall down and worship it. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, three Hebrews whom the king had set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, refused to worship the image or even to bow to it, and at the king’s command they were cast alive into a burning, fiery furnace, from which God miraculously delivered them; thus fully justifying their disobedience to civil authority.AMS November 10, 1892, page 345.4

ANOTHER instance of disobedience to a civil law which invaded the domain of conscience, is recorded in the sixth chapter of the book of Daniel. In this instance the prophet himself, though prime minister of the kingdom, was the offender. The king, at the instance of “the presidents and princes” of his realm, made a decree that no man should ask any petition of any man or God, save of the king only, for a period of thirty days, upon penalty of being cast alive into a den of lions. It had long been Daniel’s custom to pray at his open window three times a day. The record tells us, “Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.” For this violation of civil law, Daniel was deposed from office and cast into a den of lions; but the angel of the Lord delivered him.AMS November 10, 1892, page 345.5

JEREMIAH, too, another prophet of the Lord, repeatedly disobeyed the king, and was on several occasions imprisoned for his temerity. But it is in the New Testament that we find the most noteworthy examples of disregard of civil law when it came in conflict with divine authority. In the third chapter of Acts we have the record of the miracle of healing wrought upon the cripple at the Beautiful gate of the Temple. This miracle caused a great commotion, insomuch that it greatly excited the jealousy of the rulers of the people. They therefore commanded Peter and John that they should teach no more in the name of Jesus. “But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” In accordance with their word, the apostles disobeyed the rulers and were again arraigned. “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:27-29.AMS November 10, 1892, page 345.6

IN the light of the facts related in the various scriptures quoted, the question arises, Did these godly men violate any correct principle of civil government? Civil government is ordained of God for the good of his creatures, and did he in these cases vindicate men for disregarding principles which he himself had laid down?—Most assuredly not. God ordained civil governments, but he also ordained their proper sphere; and outside of that they are without rightful authority; and not only are men at liberty to disobey them, when to obey would be to violate their consciences, but they must disobey, or prove disloyal to God and to their own souls.AMS November 10, 1892, page 345.7

Christ did not state a new truth, or lay down a new principle, when he said, “Render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” He only stated the underlying principle of all government; and it is upon this principle that the followers of Christ in every age have acted. In all civil things they have yielded cheerful and implicit obedience, but they have gone to the block and to the stake rather than yield to Cesar the things that belong to God. And the Tennessee Adventists can do neither more nor less than the followers of Christ have ever done; they must, if they retain their Christian integrity, remain loyal to God at any cost. It is admitted by the State of Tennessee, that in every thing except the matter of Sunday observance they are good citizens. It was likewise the testimony of Daniel’s enemies that they could find no fault with him except as “concerning the law of his God.” The Tennessee Adventist can, like Daniel, submit to whatever penalty the law imposes upon them; but they can not violate their conscientious convictions of duty toward God, and remain Christians.AMS November 10, 1892, page 345.8

“Note” The American Sentinel 7, 44, p. 350.

ATJ

IT is an error to suppose that the majority has an unqualified right to rule. In civil things the majority has a right to rule, but the majority has no more right to invade the domain of conscience than has the single individual whom custom, fraud, or force has placed at the head of a government. Such power is illegitimate no matter by whom it may be exercised. Governments are instituted to secure natural right, and any government that fails to do this has no right to exist, whether it be a government by one, by the few, or by the many.AMS November 10, 1892, page 350.1

“Back Page” The American Sentinel 7, 44, p. 352.

ATJ

THE decision of the General Term of the City Court that a contract for streamer transportation to be carried out on Sunday is void, emphasizes the fact that Sunday is more than a merely civil day, and that the purpose of the Sunday law of the State of New York is to recognize that day as more than a holiday. The courts would not think of voiding a contract made for service to be rendered on the Fourth of July or on Thanksgiving Day. A transportation company failing to furnish transportation on either of those days, as stipulated, would be mulcted in heavy damages. This shows that Sunday stands alone and pre-eminent among days in our civil statutes; and that, because of its religious character.AMS November 10, 1892, page 352.1

BUT perhaps the most peculiar feature of this decision is that while the transportation company was released from its contract because of the moral character of the day, there was no redress for the men who had expended their money to go on the excursion. It thus appears that in the eyes of the courts of this State and city, the observance of Sunday is a matter of much more importance than honesty between man and man.AMS November 10, 1892, page 352.2

When the Saviour, the Son of God, was asked which was the great commandment in the law, he replied: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Lord Jesus Christ thus placed the two divisions of the law on an equality, as is also done in James 2:10, where it is declared that “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all;” for he has broken the divine law. But the courts of New York are more wise(?), and in their attempt to administer the divine law, as construed by the law-makers of the State, have ascertained that though a steamboat company defraud some Germans who do not regard the first day of the week, yet, if by so doing the company refuses to run its boast on Sunday it is guiltless!AMS November 10, 1892, page 352.3

November 3, 1892

November 17, 1892