PROTESTANTISM FOUND WANTING.
By Editor
SOME weeks ago we stated that there were in the jail at Centreville, Md., three men, who were in durance vile for the crime of doing 'bodily labor on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday.' One was convicted for plowing in his field, one for setting out tomato plants, and one for cutting sprouts, chopping wood at his own door, and digging in his garden. All are poor men. The first has a family of eleven children, the youngest of which is but three months old. The second was convicted solely on the testimony of his son, who was constable, and who purposely went to catch his father at work, in order that he might prosecute him. The work of each and all was out of hearing of any church, and no one testified as to having his devotion disturbed by it, either in private or public. These facts have in various ways been set before the public more or less fully. Another thing worthy of note is that the law under which these prosecutions were carried on is diametrically opposed to the Bill of Rights of Maryland, which declares that 'all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or his religious practice.' The above facts were stated in a small tract, which the Religious Liberty Association has circulated quite freely in Maryland, a copy of which came to the notice of an editorial writer of the Catholic Mirror, the official organ of the Roman Catholic Church in America. This is made known to us by an article in the Mirror of January 13, signed 'SENEX.' The writer states that he made inquiry and found the men in jail, as stated by the publication. After quoting from the pamphlet the facts of the case, the writer says:— That the statute books should be disgraced at this day by the existence of an enactment one hundred and seventy years old, framed in a spirit of intensified intolerance and persecution, and by no means obsolete, as the above quotation verifies, is well calculated to challenge the practical credulity of the citizens of the United States; but that such a state194of things should exist in Catholic Maryland, the cradle of civil and religious liberty, more than a century after the revolution had broken the fetters which had held captive for over seventy years the Catholics of Maryland, transcends the comprehension of ordinary men. He then goes on to speak of how the Catholics of Maryland opened their doors to the oppressed of all nations, pledging to all protection, without exception; how Protestants settled in Maryland, coming from other colonies where they were persecuted, became the majority, and then turned and persecuted Catholics, by enacting the blue laws of Maryland, of which the present Sunday law is part and parcel. The Revolution intervened, the persecution ceased, and it was supposed that the Bill of Rights had superseded all previous persecuting laws. If it had not been for the revolution, our writer concludes, the Protestants of Maryland would still be following 'the congenial occupation' of persecuting the minority; and, that this conclusion is just, there is cited in proof the case of the three Sabbath keepers in Centreville jail, in the following words, which Protestants would do well to ponder, not only for consistency's sake, and the sake of religious liberty, but for their own soul's sake:— That no Catholic had any part in this wanton persecution cannot be for a moment supposed; yet we feel it a duty to call public attention to this exhibition of venomous intolerance, worthy the palmiest days of the Established Church in Maryland, when for three-fourths of a century she returned with the blackest ingratitude, in the form of penal laws, the hospitable welcome accorded her by her Catholic fellow-subjects. The act we refer to was in direct violation of the Maryland Bill of Rights, which guarantees protection to the citizen against any law existing, or attempted to be enacted, that would interfere with the religious liberty of the citizen. A penal law, which is evidently rendered obsolete by the fundamental law of Maryland, viz., the Bill of Rights, is resurrected from deserved oblivion, and made the instrument of depriving of their liberty honest and industrious citizens, who, in good faith, accepting the teachings of their Bible, find no warrant whatsoever therein for keeping the first day of the week holy, but keep the Saturday, as enjoined by the Bible, and are forthwith made the victims of persecution for an error of fact on their part or on the part of their persecutors. If these men can show that they are thoroughly sustained in their views (and there is no doubt of the fact), what can be thought of the criminality of the representatives of the majority in the premises? That they are radically wrong, their common teacher, the Bible, being the witness, is absolutely true, for the common teacher of both parties has never once hinted from Genesis to Revelation of any day for the worship of God save Saturday; hence their action in depriving of their liberty Christian men, who, from their own standpoint, were consistently and conscientiously engaged in giving homage to God on the day appointed by himself, is a deed of despotism and savage criminality unauthorized by divine and human law. It recalls to the minds of Marylanders the intolerant course pursued by the Church of England for three-quarters of a century towards Catholics, whilst our modern Protestant bigots resurrected from its grave, where it lay buried for a century, an odious enactment of the penal code, for the purpose of punishing conscientious and consistent Protestants for correctly interpreting their common teacher, the Bible. The above is true, and every intelligent and unprejudiced Bible student will acknowledge it. There is 'no warrant whatever therein [in the Bible] for keeping the first day of the week holy.' The Bible does warrant the keeping of the seventh day. Those men in jail 'can show that they are thoroughly sustained in their views,' 'and there is no doubt of the fact.' Now 'what can be thought of the criminality of the representatives [those who enforce this Sunday law] of the majority [Protestants], in the premises?' Reader, what do you think of it? But this is not all. The article continues:— But the rule is that the minority must submit to the pains and penalties inflicted on Catholics in Maryland one hundred and seventy years ago, for exercising their right to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, without interfering with any rights of their fellow-citizens. What has become of our boasted enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, when in one of the States of the Union, one of the oldest, and proudest of her record, Christian men to-day are incarcerated for worshiping God according to the dictates of their conscience, through an enactment [the Maryland Sunday law] which is a disgrace at any time to the human race? The Mirror then refers to the present agitation over the recent Catholic circulars concerning public school moneys, a word concerning which may not be amiss. A short time ago circular letters were sent out by Catholics setting forth the constant claim which they have made for their share of the public school moneys in carrying on their own schools, taught by their own teachers. Bills have been introduced in the New York and Maryland Legislatures for the purpose of granting the Catholic claim under certain restrictions. These things have called out a storm of opposition from the Protestant press and pulpit. Great meetings have been held to protest against the granting of the Roman Catholic claim, ostensibly in the interest of 'religious liberty.' Meetings of this kind were held in Maryland by the Protestant clergy during the very time those men were lying in jail. The Mirror thus refers to one of these meetings:— Synchronously with the above facts—a parody on our civilization and boasted enjoyment of 'religious liberty'—a number of preachers of the different Protestant sects 'made the welkin ring' with blatant and inflammable oratory—not in vindication of these sufferers for civil and religious liberty at their very doors—but because they pretended to have apprehensions that the public-school system was likely to be endangered by the application of Catholics for a quota of the public-school funds derivable from the taxes, which they pay, in common with all citizens, into the treasury. THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY TEST.
And then the article asks if Protestants have really done this in the interests of 'religious liberty,' or was it after all simply because they had the power. It then gives a simple test. If it be for the sake of religious liberty, why not protest against the persecution of these Christians in prison? Was this 'tempest in a teapot' gotten up in the interests of civil and religious liberty? or was it not rather an additional proof of the tyranny of majorities? We shall put the question to the test forthwith. We now appeal most respectfully to those indignant clerics, but with special reference to the soi-disant Bishop of Maryland, who, on this recent occasion, so chivalrously threw himself into the breach, and who repeated, with so much vim, his Quixotic attack on the Roman windmill, to rush without delay to the rescue of the poor victims in Centreville jail, and, inasmuch as his predecessors in the Episcopal ministry in Maryland had enacted the iniquitous law that holds them 'in durance vile,' to take, in the name of 'religious liberty'—a very much abused and distorted phrase—immediate action for their prompt deliverance. This will be recognized and accepted as a proof of his sincerity. He knows well that these men are suffering for conscience' sake. THE PROTESTANT AND DENOMINATIONAL TEST.
But the writer goes still farther. He not only brings the test on their own plea of so-called 'religious liberty,' and shows they are wanting, but he brings the test on a Protestant and denominational basis by quoting from the Thirty-nine Articles of the Episcopal Church, in the following:— They [the Sabbath keepers in jail] are his [the Protestant Episcopal bishop's] coreligionists—staunch Protestants—true Biblicals, who have suffered more for their belief than any Protestant living in Maryland to-day. Their interpretation of their teacher, the Bible, on the Sabbath question varies from that of Protestants generally. The bishop of Maryland will find in the sixth article of religion the following rule: 'Holy Scripture containeth everything necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man,' etc. Will the bishop of Maryland note just here that the keeping of Sunday 'is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby'? Will he also kindly recognize the following words of the twentieth article: 'And yet it is not lawful for the church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written'? The bishop's church has ordained and still ordains the keeping of Sunday, 'contrary to God's word written,' because God's written word unequivocally calls for the keeping of Saturday alone. Therefore, by the test of true religious liberty, by the Protestant test of the Bible and the Bible alone, as indicated by one creed, which may be taken as the substance of many others, Protestantism is being and has been tried and found wanting. What have Protestants to say to this arraignment for cowardly, wicked Sunday persecution? Read what the New York Observer says, as recorded last week. Note what has and is being done in Tennessee, Maryland, and Georgia. Is it not time for God to say, 'Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues'? There are yet Protestants in the churches, but are the churches Protestant? We shall have more to say concerning this hereafter.