THE POCASSET MURDER by Roswell F. Cottrell

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 10, 1879

THE POCASSET MURDER.

By Roswell F. Cottrell

The Evangelical Messenger of June 19, 1879, gives the comments of Rev. D. B. Byers on the cause of this tragedy. He starts out by emphasizing the fact that “Freeman was a ‘Second Adventist.’” Says he, “He no doubt had the full effect of the legalistic notions of that persuasion working in him.” (The italics are his.) Again, “If Freeman had held any other than the legalistic views of the Second Adventists, he would no doubt have been kept from the awful deed, and been spared the dreadful experience.” If this is so,—if legalistic views led Freeman to the commission of this terrible crime,—it is a matter of the deepest interest to know what these views are. What are they?

He continues, “I have more than once, in discussion with men of this faith, had occasion to remind them of the fact of St. Paul’s asseveration to the Galatians: ‘Christ is become of none effect unto you, whosoever of you are [seek to be] justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.’ To my mind Freeman’s slaughter of his child is the extreme, yet legitimate fruit of such extreme legalistic ideas.”

Now, every person at all acquainted with the facts of the “discussion” which he mentions, knows that the text he quotes from Galatians is never quoted in these discussions for any other purpose than to make it appear that Christians are not bound to keep all the ten commandments as they are found in the Bible. All who hold to the keeping of the whole ten commandments are reproachfully called legalists by their opponents, as seeking to be justified by the law.

The reader needs to know that there are two classes of Second Adventists, one holding to the entire code of the moral law,—the ten commandments, and the faith of Jesus Christ also; the other class holds with Mr. Byers, that that law has been abolished, superseded, or amended by the faith of Christ, and they taunt the former class as having fallen from grace. Paul belonged to the former class. Said he, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Rom. 3 : 31.

If Freeman had a standing with either of these two classes (which is very doubtful), he belonged to the class that held with Mr. Byers, and with him quote the text about being justified by the law and fallen from grace, to those who hold to all the ten commandments.

But supposing that Freeman was a legalist in the sense that he held the entire moral code as strictly binding upon him as the rule of his life and the guide of his actions; would the “fiery law,” flashing like a glittering sword over his head, “Thou shalt not kill,” have a tendency to lead him to kill his child? The idea is preposterous. There is more sense in two lines of A Lunatic’s Address to a Mosquito, which recently appeared in some of the papers; namely, “The laws which run this mortal state, ’Tis never safe to violate.”

What will not blind prejudice do for a man’s reasoning powers! Had the murder been committed by a Methodist, Presbyterian, or a Baptist, would the whole sect with its doctrines be charged as leading to such a result? Whence arises this peculiar spite against Second Adventists, but from a heart that does not love the appearing of Christ?

Mr. Byers says, “The members of the Second Adventists in the place, it is said, held a counsel [council?] over the matter, and justified the inhuman deed as a great act of faith and submission to the Divine will.” Yes, “it is reported;” and our writer seems not to have noticed the ample reputation of this report which has been published in the papers; but seems willing to take up a reproach against his neighbor, simply because he is a Second Adventist. Is this the better half, the Christian side of the world? It cannot be charged with legalism, for there is nothing legal about it. It is a good illustration of the doctrine that if you keep the moral law, you are fallen from grace.

R. F. COTTRELL.