p. 198 | TENNESSEE

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 19, 1879

TENNESSEE

Edgefield Junction, June 10.—Met with the brethren at Cross Plains, June 6 and 7. On Sabbath a good meeting was held at the house of Bro. Yates, where some bore their testimony for the first time. The next day we assembled a mile and a half from town, and organized a Sabbath-school of nine members, expecting that more will be added soon. There is a company of ten Sabbath-keepers here, who should very soon be organized. The interest is good. Brethren, pray for the cause in this place.

CLIFTON OWENS.

Springville, Henry Co., June 5.—We have been here about two months, and have held meetings in three different buildings. Sixteen have signed the covenant, five of whom were keeping the Sabbath when we came here. Opposition has been bitter and determined, but the Lord has verified 1 Cor. 1:27–29.

Five ministers have exposed the weakness of their own positions; first, by several of them refusing to converse on the subject of the Sabbath, even when asked for instruction; second, by forbidding the preaching of any more strange doctrine in the Methodist church; third, by several opposition discourses, which we reviewed; fourth, last Sabbath a Methodist minister sent a constable to serve a writ on three of our brethren, for breaking the Sabbath on Sunday, May 25. They refused to transact any business with the officer on the Sabbath, and we persuaded him to go with us to meeting. Mrs. Owen spoke on the union of the church, for which Christ prayed (Jno. 17), and the means to secure this result (1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4: 11–13). As she dwelt on the final glorious triumph, the representative of the “powers that be” was affected to tears. After that he labored to deliver our brethren.

Yesterday I attended the trial at the court house. Two of our brethren were acquitted at once, as no testimony was brought against them. The minister, Clement, was charged with the entire cost. As the decision is given by one of high standing in the legal profession of this State, and it will be of general interest and practical value to the brethren throughout Tennessee, we give it in full as read before the court, and request its publication. Brethren, preserve it for future use.

G. K. OWEN.

THE following is the decision referred to above:—

T. D. CLEMENT vs. W. D. DORCH.

DEFENDANT is brought before me under Sec. 1723 of the Code, for violation of the Sabbath, or, as mentioned in said section, Sunday. He pleads guilty to having violated, or worked on, Sunday, the first day of the week, but insists it is not the Sabbath, or day of rest, but that Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, is the Sabbath or day of rest, and shows by proof that he observes that, as required by the section mentioned for Sunday. Defendant further insists that, as a member of a religious denomination called “Seventh-day Adventists,” he is compelled by conscience to “work six days and rest the seventh,” and that, according to his belief, Saturday is the seventh day. Now the section mentioned does not say the seventh day, but Sunday; and it is defined by Bouvier, and followed by all law-writers on the subject, that Sunday is the first day of the week. (Dec. Bouvier, Sabbath, Sunday.) It will be seen that the intention of the legislature was to prohibit ordinary labor on the Christian Sabbath, by reference to Sec. 1724, which uses the words Sunday and Sabbath as convertible terms, and by reference to the act of 1741, from which the sections mentioned are drawn, which requires “all and every person or persons whatsoever, on the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, to apply themselves carefully to the duties of religion and piety.” Defendant claims that Saturday is the Sabbath, and observes it as such.

The Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 3, declares “that all men have natural and indefeasible rights to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience;” that “no human authority can in any case whatever control, or interfere with the rights of conscience,” and that no preference shall be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship.

If the legislature intended arbitrarily to fix a day for people to observe, Sunday, as the Sabbath, regardless of their religious belief, then the Act is directly in conflict with the above section of the Constitution, and is void, because

it is “human authority interfering with the right of conscience.” Therefore, as the intention of the legislature was to require the observance of the Sabbath, and not to fix arbitrarily a holy day, and as Defendant observes what his religion teaches as the Sabbath, he is not guilty of any violation of the law; the case must be dismissed, and Plaintiff taxed with costs. It is not worth while to inquire as to manner in which the action is brought, as the above decides the case. W. L. CARTER, J. P.