Earlier text: What Is the Harm?Natural Result of Rigid Sunday Laws.
Last month in an article on the “Ethics of Sunday Legislation,” we showed that, since Sunday is an institution of the church, the enactment of laws enforcing its observance is the first step toward a union of Church and State, and that the enforcement of such laws can be nothing else but persecution for conscience’ sake. We promised to give in this number of the SENTINEL a demonstration of these propositions by actual facts. We can fulfill our promise no better than by reprinting the following from the speech of the Hon. Robert H. Crockett in the Arkansas Senate, in behalf of a bill which he had introduced for the granting of immunity from the penalties of the Sunday law to those who observe the seventh day. The facts therein stated, coming as they do from a disinterested party, except as he is interested in liberty and justice, and in the good name of his adopted State, must have much weight on this question. Mr. Crockett’s sense of the outrages perpetrated in Arkansas was so vivid that he overlooked the fact that similar ones had been perpetrated in Tennessee. But the arraignment against legislation which allows religious bigots to wreak their spite on those whose only offense is that they are in the minority, is sufficiently strong, even though he did not mention a tithe of the persecutions. Following is the speech:— Sir, I take shame to myself as a member of the General Assembly of 1885, which repealed the act of religious protection which this bill is intended to restore. It was hasty and ill-advised legislation, and like all such, has been only productive of oppressive persecution upon many of our best citizens, and of shame to the fair fame of our young and glorious State. Wrong in conception, it has proven infamous in execution, and under it, such ill deeds and foul oppressions have been perpetrated upon an inoffensive class of free American citizens in Arkansas, for conscience’ sake, as should mantle the cheek of every lover of his State and country with indignant shame. For nearly a half century the laws of our State, constitutional and statutory, were in accord with our national Constitution, in guaranteeing to every citizen the right to worship God in the manner prescribed by his own conscience, and that alone. The noble patriots who framed our nation’s fundamental law, with the wisdom taught by the history of disastrous results in other nations from joining Church and State, and fully alive to so great a danger to our republican institutions and their perpetuity, so wisely constructed that safeguard of our American liberties that for forty years after its ratification there was no effort to interfere with its grand principle of equal protection to all, in the full enjoyment and exercise of their religious convictions. Then petitions began to pour in from the New England States upon the United States senate “to prevent the carrying and delivery of the mails upon Sunday”—which29they declared was set aside by “divine authority as a day to be kept holy.” The petitions were referred to the committee on postal matters and the report was made by Hon. Richard M. Johnson, one of the fathers of the Democratic party. I quote the following from that report, which was adopted unanimously and “committee discharged:”— “Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for violation of what government denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the Constitution has withheld the power of defining the divine law. It is a right reserved to each citizen. And while he respects the rights of others he cannot be held amenable to any human tribunal for his conclusions. . . . The obligation of the Government is the same on both these classes; [those who keep Saturday and those who keep Sunday] and the committee can discover no principle on which the claims of one should be more respected than those of the other; unless it be admitted that the consciences of the minority are less sacred than those of the majority.” Listen to that last sentence—but again I quote:— “What other nations call religious toleration we call religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which Government cannot deprive any of its citizens, however small. Despotic power may invade these rights, but justice still confirms them. And again:— “Let the national Legislature once perform an act which involves the decision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The precedent will then be established, and the foundation laid for the usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country which has been the desolating scourge to the fairest portions of the Old World. Our Constitution recognizes no other power than that of persuasion, for enforcing religious observances.” Sir, it was my privilege during the last two years to travel through our Northwestern States in the interest of immigration. I delivered public lectures upon the material resources of Arkansas, and the inducements held out by her to those who desired homes in a new State. I told them of her cloudless skies and tropical climes, and bird songs as sweet as vesper chimes. I told them of her mountains and valleys, of her forests of valuable timber, her thousands of miles of navigable waters, her gushing springs, her broad, flower-decked and grass-carpeted prairies, sleeping in the golden sunshine of unsettled solitude. I told them, sir, of the rich stores of mineral wealth sleeping in the sunless depths of her bosom. I told them of our God-inspired liquor laws, of our “pistol laws,” of our exemption laws, and oh, sir! God forgive me the lie—I told them that our Constitution and laws protected all men equally in the enjoyment and exercise of their religious convictions. I told them that the sectional feeling engendered by the war was a thing of the past, and that her citizens, through me, cordially invited them to come and share this glorious land with us and aid us to develop it. Many came and settled up our wild lands and prairies, and where but a few years ago was heard in the stillness of the night the howl of the wolf, the scream of the panther, and the wail of the wildcat, these people for whom I am pleading, came and settled, and behold the change. Instead of the savage sounds incident to the wilderness, now is heard the tap, tap, tap, of the mechanic’s hammer, the rattle and roar of the railroad, the busy hum of industry, and softer, sweeter far than all these is heard the music of the church bells as they ring in silvery chimes across the prairies and valleys and are echoed back from the hill-sides throughout the borders of our whole State. SUNDAY OBSERVANCE UNSCRIPTURAL.
These people are, many of them, Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists. They are people who religiously and conscientiously keep Saturday, the seventh-day, as the Sabbath, in accordance with the fourth commandment. They find no authority in the Scripture for keeping Sunday, the first day of the week, nor can anyone else. All commentators agree that Saturday is and was the scriptural Sabbath, and that the keeping of Sunday, the first day of the week, as the Sabbath, is of human origin, and not by divine injunction. The Catholic writers and all theologians agree in this. These people understand the decalogue to be as binding upon them as fully to-day as when handed down amid the thunders of Sinai. They do not feel at liberty to abstain from their usual avocations, because they read the commandment, “Six days shalt thou labor,” as mandatory, and they believe that they have no more right to abstain from labor on the first day of the week than they have to neglect the observance of Saturday as their Sabbath. They agree with their Christian brethren of other denominations in all essential points of doctrine, the one great difference being upon the day to be kept as the Sabbath. They follow no avocations tending to demoralize the community in which they live. They came among us expecting the same protection in the exercise of their religious faith, as is accorded to them in all the states of Europe, in South Africa, Australia, the Sandwich Islands, and every State in the Union except, alas! that I should say it, Arkansas! Sir, under the existing law there have been in Arkansas within the last two years three times as many cases of persecution for conscience’ sake, as there have been in all the other States combined since the adoption of our national Constitution. PERSECUTION FOR CONSCIENCE’ SAKE.
Let me, sir, illustrate the operation of the present law by one or two examples. A Mr. Swearigen came from a northern State and settled a farm in — County. His farm was four miles from town, and far away from any house of religious worship. He was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and, after having sacredly observed the Sabbath of his people (Saturday) by abstaining from all secular work, he and his son, a lad of seventeen, on the first day of the week, went quietly about their usual avocations. They disturbed no one—interfered with the rights of no one. But they were observed, and reported to the grand jury—indicted, arrested, tried, convicted, fined—and, having no money to pay the fine, these moral, Christian citizens of Arkansas were dragged to the county jail and imprisoned like felons for twenty-five days—and for what? For daring in this so-called land of liberty, in the year of our Lord 1887, to worship God. Was this the end of the story? Alas, no, sir! They were turned out; and the old man’s only horse, his sole reliance to make bread for his children, was levied on to pay the fine and costs, amounting to $38. The horse sold at auction for $27. A few days afterward the sheriff came again and demanded $36, $11 balance due on fine and costs, and $25 for board for himself and son while in jail. And when the poor old man—a Christian, mind you—told him with tears that he had no money, he promptly levied on his only cow, but was persuaded to accept bond, and the amount was paid by contributions from his friends of the same faith. Sir, my heart swells to bursting with indignation as I repeat to you the infamous story. Another, and I am done. Sir, I beg you and these senators to believe that these are neither fancy nor exaggerated sketches. Five years ago a young man, newly married, came to — County, from Ohio. He and his wife were Seventh-day Baptists. The young girl had left father and mother, brothers and sisters, and all the dear friends of her childhood to follow her young husband to Arkansas—to them the land of promise. The light of love sparkled in her bright, young eyes. The roses of health were upon her cheeks, and her silver laugh was sweet music, of which her young husband never wearied. They purchased a little farm, and soon, by tireless industry and frugal thrift, their home blossomed like a rose in the wilderness. After awhile a fair young babe came to them to brighten the sunshine, and sweeten the bird songs. They were happy in each other’s affection and their love for the little one. For them “all things worked together for good;” for, in their humble, trusting way, they worshiped God and loved their fellow-men. Two years ago the law under which their prosperity and happiness had had its growth was repealed! Cursed be the day which brought such a foul blot upon our State’s fair fame! A change, sudden, cold, and blasting as an arctic storm came over their lives and pitilessly withered all their bright flowers of hope. Under this repeal, persecution lifted its ugly, venomous head. The hero of my sad story was observed by an envious, jealous neighbor, quietly working, as he believed God had commanded him, on Sunday. He was reported to that inquisitorial relic of barbarism, the grand jury—indicted, tried, convicted, and thrown into jail because his conscience would not let him pay the fine. Week after week dragged its slow length along. Day after day the young wife, with baby in her arms, watched at the gate for his coming, and like Tennyson’s Marianna— “She only said: ‘My life is dreary—
He cometh not,’ she said.
She said: ‘I am aweary—aweary—
I would that I were dead.’
Then baby sickened and died—the light in30the young wife’s eyes faded out in tears—her silvery laugh changed to low, wailing sobs. Pale-faced Misery snatched the roses from her cheeks and planted in their stead her own pallid hue. Sir, how can I go on? At length the cruel law was appeased, and this inoffensive citizen (except that he had loved God and sought to obey him) was released from prison and dragged his weary feet to the happy home he had left a few short weeks before. He met his neighbors at the gate bearing a coffin. He asked no questions, his heart told him all, No, not all! He knew not—he could never know—of her lonely hours, of her bitter tears, of the weary watching and waiting, of the appeals to God, that God for whom she had suffered so much, for help in the hour of her extremity, of baby’s sickness and death. He could not know of these. But he went with them to the quiet country burial-place and saw beside the open grave a little mound with dirt freshly heaped upon it, and then he knew that God had taken both his heart’s idols and he was left alone. His grief was too deep for tears. With staring eyes he saw them lower the body of his young wife into the grave. He heard the clods rattle upon the coffin, and it seemed as if they were falling upon his heart. The work was done and they left him with his dead, and then he threw himself down between the graves with an arm across each little mound, and the tears came in torrents and kept his heart from breaking. And then he sobbed his broken farewell to his darlings and left Arkansas forever. Left it, sir, as hundreds of others are preparing to leave if this General Assembly fails to restore to them the protection of their rights under the Constitution, national and State. On next Monday, at Malvern, six as honest, good, and virtuous citizens as live in Arkansas are to be tried as criminals for daring to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their own consciences; for exercising a right which this Government, under the Constitution, has no power to abridge. Sir, I plead, in the name of justice, in the name of our republican institutions, in the name of these inoffensive, God-fearing, God-serving people, our fellow-citizens, and last, sir, in the name of Arkansas, I plead that this bill may pass, and this one foul blot be wiped from the escutcheon of our glorious commonwealth. National Reform and Papal Principles
“MANIFESTLY there is an irreconcilable difference between Papal principles and the fundamental principles of our free institutions. Popular government is self-government. A nation is capable of self-government only so far as the individuals who compose it are capable of self-government. To place one’s conscience, therefore, in the keeping of another, and to disavow all personal responsibility in obeying the dictation of another, is as far as possible from self-control, and therefore wholly inconsistent with republican institutions, and, if common, dangerous to their stability.”—Rev. Josiah Strong. When we remember that National Reform principles are essentially Papal principles, we see in the above a strong indictment of so-called National Reform. The Christian Cynosure on National Reform.
By Alonzo T. Jones
The Christian Cynosure, it appears, has partially read—very partially indeed—the December number of the AMERICAN SENTINEL, and is thereby moved to make some comments upon it, its aim, and its work. As the Cynosure is itself an advocate of National Reform, some of its comments are worth a passing notice. Of the SENTINEL the Cynosure says:— “Its one sole aim is to antagonize and resist those who would have our national Constitution amended by inserting the single word ‘Christian,’ so as to distinguish between the ‘free exercise’ of the Christian religion, and the ‘free exercise’ of child-murder, polygamy, assassination, and whatever crimes are called religion. . . . The sole object of the promoters [of the Religious Amendment] being to prevent the Constitution from covering crime.” Although one of the editors of the Cynosure is a Vice-President of the National Reform Association, yet that paper has a very poor understanding of the National Reform movement, if it really supposes that the design of the Religious Amendment to the Constitution is the insertion of “the single word Christian.” Perhaps we can enlighten the Cynosure somewhat. We shall try. Therefore we would inform it that in the first National Convention for National Reform that was ever held, a memorial to Congress was adopted, asking for the adoption of measures by that body, for amending the Constitution of the United States. This memorial asked that the Preamble to the Constitution should be amended to read as follows—the amendment in brackets:— CHRISTIANITY THE TEST OF CITIZENSHIP.
“We, the people of the United States, [humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian Government], and in order to form a more perfect union,” etc. This of itself is a good deal more than the insertion of “the single word ‘Christian,’” but this is not near all that they propose, not by a long way. This memorial continues:— “And further, that such changes with respect to the oath of office, slavery, and all other matters, should be introduced into the body of the Constitution as may be necessary to give effect to the Amendment, in the Preamble.” That is to say that the Constitution throughout shall be subjected to a revision so as to make it conform, and give effect, to this amended Preamble. In other words, the whole Constitution shall be revised to suit the National Reformers. It is evident that National Reform involves a vast deal more than the insertion of “the single word ‘Christian’” in the Constitution. If the Cynosure will read the November SENTINEL, 1886, it can get some idea of how much more. The Cynosure needs to be a good deal better acquainted with National Reform, before it undertakes to comment upon the opposition to that movement. Therefore read the SENTINEL, Mr. Editor, read the SENTINEL. Even though it were true that all that is intended by National Reform were the insertion of the single word “Christian,” we should yet oppose it just as much as we do, so long as the effect of such insertion would be to give to Christians the sole right to citizenship and its privileges and immunities. We have as much regard for Christianity and the Christian name as anybody has, but we do not believe that any set of men have the right to a monopoly of that name, nor under it the monopoly of all human right. But says the Cynosure, the insertion of this “single word” in the Constitution is “to distinguish between the ‘free exercise’ of the Christian religion, and the ‘free exercise’ of child-murder, polygamy, assassination, and whatever crimes are called religion.” In this expression the Cynosure shows as great destitution of a knowledge of the Constitution as in the other it showed of National Reform. Does that paper mean seriously to assert that the Constitution of the United States guarantees the free exercise “of child-murder, polygamy, assassination,” and other “crimes” as it guarantees the free exercise of religion? Does the Cynosure know no distinction between crime and religion? If it does not, it is time that it understood that the National Constitution does know such distinction. It might be well also to inform the Cynosure that there are now both State and United States laws prohibiting child-murder, polygamy, assassination, and other crimes, and even misdemeanors. Therefore if its further statement be true, that the sole object of the promoters of the Religious Amendment is “to prevent the Constitution from covering crime,” then the “sole object” of the National Reformers is wholly purposeless; for when their “sole object” should be accomplished, they would have only what they now have. But to prevent the Constitution from covering crime, is not the sole object of the promoters of the Religious Amendment. Their object is to so amend the Constitution that it shall recognize and define as crime, that which is not and cannot be crime. They want the Constitution so amended that under it there shall be no distinction between sin and crime; but that all sins shall be crimes, and punishable by the civil law. If it be admitted that all sin is crime, then we freely confess that the Cynosure is strictly correct in saying that the “sole object” of the promoters of National Reform “is to prevent the Constitution from covering crime.” That is, their “sole object” is to so amend the United States Constitution, that under it the National Reformers may put themselves in the place of God to pass upon, to define, and to punish, sin. Then the Cynosure mentions Masonry and Mormonism, and says that these are “a sort of gentlemen whom our AMERICAN SENTINEL seems to treat with silent respect, though surrounded by them.” So far as Mormonism is concerned, any person who is a reader of the SENTINEL knows by these words that the Cynosure has not read it to any appreciable extent. As for Masonry, if there were on foot a movement to establish a Masonic hierarchy in this Government, as there is to establish a National Reform hierarchy; or if we should see in Masonry any such menace to civil and religious liberty, as there is in National Reform; then we should endeavor to ventilate such iniquity in Masonry, as we do now that in National Reform. But we do not propose to spend any of our time to so little purpose, as the Cynosure has spent all these years. Next, the Cynosure undertakes to tell exactly what the National Reformers want. That we may the more clearly set forth these wants we shall number them. 1. “We want a Bible oath in our courts, and chaplains, and Thanksgivings such as we now have and have had from the first.” That is to say, we want a religious amendment to the National Constitution, to give us what “we now have,” and what we always “have had from the first!” In other words, they want what they already have, and they31will subvert the Constitution to get it. That seems to us a queer sort of proceeding for men of sound minds. 2. “A recognized standard of law and morals so as to know by what God to swear witnesses, and to furnish definitions for public vices and crimes.” As there has never yet been any difficulty in knowing by what God to swear witnesses; and as the law already furnishes definitions for all public vices and crimes, it would seem that this want stands on about the same level as the other one, and that agitation to obtain it is agitation to get what we already “have and have had from the first.” 3. “We wish for a Constitutional barrier against the religion of Dahomey, which celebrates the king’s birthday by piling up human heads.” Well did anybody ever! What in the world has our Constitution to do with erecting a barrier against the celebration of the birthday of the king of Dahomey? Is the editorial staff of the Cynosure, or are the National Reformers, afraid that the king of Dahomey is going to send an expedition all the way to the United States to get human heads to pile up in celebration of his birthday? and are they afraid that he will select their heads out of all the sixty-five millions here? If they are very sore afraid, we can re-assure them by assuring them that such an attempt on the part of the king of Dahomey, or any other king, would be an invasion of this country; and there is now a “Constitutional barrier” against invasions. Clause 16, of Section VIII of Article I, declares that Congress shall have power, “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions.” But should the terrible king of Dahomey succeed in sinking our navy, and in eluding our militia, and should he actually capture the editorial staff of the Cynosure or some other of the National Reformers, there is still another “Constitutional barrier” against him, for clause 11, of the same Section before cited, declares that Congress shall have power, “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules CONCERNING CAPTURES on land and water.” Oh, dear Cynosure, you and all your fellow “Reformers” are perfectly and constitutionally safe from being compelled to bear any part in the sanguinary celebration of the birthday of the king of Dahomey. As for the rest of us we will all willingly take our chances, rather than to risk the rule of a National Reform régime. So as this seems to be the most instantly and really urgent of all your “wants,” and as there is now a double “Constitutional barrier” to protect you, you might just as well stop all further agitation for your National Reform Amendment. But there is yet one more want that the trembling and affrighted Cynosure utters. 4. “We wish to exclude from our courthouses Chinese oaths, sworn by yellow paper and dead cocks’ heads, and the secret oaths to have throats cut and bodies mangled to enforce partiality or protection for criminals and concealment of crime.” We cannot possibly see how the ends of justice would be promoted by compelling the Chinese to testify upon an oath that would be no more to him, than one “by yellow paper and dead cocks’ heads” would be to the editor of the Cynosure. To the Chinese such an oath is as sacred, as is the regular judicial oath to the average American; and to compel him to abandon an oath which to him is sacred, and take one which, if anything at all to him, is profane, what more surety, what more ground, would there be upon which to rest confidence that he was telling the truth? Instead of there being any more, there would be a good deal less,—in fact there would be no such surety at all. The trouble is, the National Reformers cannot see anything but that all our courts must be courts of theology and tests of faith, instead of courts of law and tests of truth and justice. As for “the secret oaths to have throats cut and bodies mangled” etc., we did not know before that there was any need of a Constitutional Amendment to exclude these from our court-houses, because we never before heard, nor do we now believe, that either our courts or our court-houses, administer, entertain, or include any such oaths. It is probable, though, that in this the Cynosure intended a stroke at Masonry, but it is made in such a blundering way that unless the reader were acquainted with the reason of the existence of the Cynosure, he would not detect the object of its aim. We do not believe that there is either righteousness or propriety in secret oaths, but even though there were a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting them, we should like to know how it could be made effective without the establishment of an inquisition to pry into the secrets of every man’s life, and worm out of him, or force from him, the confession of his secret oath. And as between Masonry and even such an inquisition, we desire rather to take our chances against the danger from the secret oath, rather than against the danger which would inevitably inhere in such an inquisition. The Cynosure closes by saying:— “We can scarcely regard him [that is, the SENTINEL] as sincerely believing that we would ‘call all the bayonets of this mighty nation’ to aid us in voting into our Constitution what our fathers intended to and supposed they had put there.” That is not exactly what the SENTINEL said. We did not say that they would call all the bayonets of the nation, to aid in voting into the Constitution what they want, but in support of their National Reform “kingdom of Christ” after they have voted it in. But the difference is very slight, and we are not sure but that they will do the one as well as the other, before they get through with their National Reform scheme. As for the sincerity of our belief on this point, we can assure the Cynosure that our belief of it is just as sincere as is the National Reform avowal of it. And that avowal by no less an authority than National Reform District Secretary, Rev. M. A. Gault, is made in these words:— “Whether the Constitution will be set right on the question of the moral supremacy of God’s law in government without bloody revolution, will depend entirely upon the strength and resistance of the forces of anti-Christ.” “It cost us all our civil war to blot slavery out of our Constitution, and it may cost us another war to blot out its infidelity.” Now we do sincerely believe that bloody revolutions are not accomplished without the use of bayonets; and we actually know that slavery was not blotted out without calling into active and bloody use all the bayonets of this mighty nation. Therefore as the National Reformers coolly and deliberately contemplate the alternative of a bloody revolution, and a war as terrible as our civil war, we do sincerely believe that, if it could not be done without, they would call all the bayonets of this mighty nation to aid in the accomplishment of that wicked work upon which they have set their hearts. Dear Cynosure, you ought to read up on National Reform. You don’t understand it very well. For your own benefit, and that you may really understand the principles of National Reform, we urge you to read the AMERICAN SENTINEL. We “sincerely believe” you ought to. NEW HISTORICAL ATLAS
By Robert H. Labberton
AS A CLASS TEXT-BOOK it is superior to any other in Unity, Brevity, Clearness, Logical Arrangement, and Suggestiveness. AS A REFERENCE BOOK it should be in the Library of every school-room in the country; every Student of History should possess a copy. In your Reading Circle or at home when you wish to consult an Atlas you need a map for a particular date. Your modern Atlas will not give it. This is the only Atlas which has a map for every period. A MAP for any particular date can instantly be found by anyone, each map having over it in figures, the year or period it covers. It is the only Atlas in which each nationality has, and always retains, its own distinctive color; hence every period has a map, and they are progressive, forming in themselves a panorama of events effective in the highest degree. NEW MAPS OF ANCIENT EMPIRES.
It contains, now made for the first time, maps of the Chaldean, Elamite, Egyptian, Kossean, Armenian, Hittite, and Assyrian Empires. The text is brief, suggestive, fascinating, but gives in an attractive form the leading events in the history of the world (not a bundle of particular histories), free from unnecessary details. It has an index. Labberton's New Historical Atlas and General History is indispensable to Libraries, Reading Circles, School Officers, Teachers, Students, etc. It contains 198 Maps, printed in colors, 30 Genealogical Charts, and is complete in one volume, 4to. Cloth, 312 pages. Sent by Mail or Express, prepaid, for $2.50. Address, PACIFIC PRESS, Oakland, Cal. GOOD HEALTH is emphatically a Family Journal, being cheap, plain, and practical, qualities which have won for it the largest circulation of any Health Journal in America. It is devoted to all reforms, but is ultra in none. It is unpartisan and unsectarian. Its only creed is nature's laws. It treats of Health, Temperance, General Literature, Science, and many other interesting and practical subjects; it is a live journal, and every way adapted to the wants of the family. There is something in it for everybody. Price, $1.00 a year. Address, GOOD HEALTH, Battle Creek, Mich. THE TRUTH FOUND.
By John Harvey Waggoner
THE NATURE AND OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
The title of this little book sufficiently explains its character. It contains more scriptural information in regard to the Sabbath than any other book of twice the size, and yet it is so simplified as to be easily comprehended. The author quotes the opinions of many learned men concerning the Sabbath, and their conflicting theories are strongly contrasted with the clear, straightforward teaching of the Bible. 64 pp. Price, 10 cents. Address, PACIFIC PRESS, Oakland, Cal. The Cynosure Acknowledges Religious Persecution
THE Christian Cynosure says:— “The Arkansas Legislature has passed a bill repealing the law punishing for engaging in secular pursuits on Sunday those who religiously observe one day each week as Sabbath. Under the existing law there have been numerous prosecutions of Second Adventists for working on Sunday.” At last the Cynosure has awakened to the fact that there have actually been persecutions in the United States, for conscience’ sake. Several months ago a statement of the persecutions under the Sunday law in Arkansas and Tennessee, was made in a sermon in Chicago, and the editor of the Cynosure called loudly for proof. He didn’t believe that anybody had been persecuted, but said that if such things had been done, the matter ought to be investigated. The matter was investigated. The one who preached the sermon went South a few weeks later, and wrote to the Cynosure a statement of the facts in the case. Some of them are given in the speech published on another page of the SENTINEL. The Cynosure published the statement, but said no more about putting a stop to such proceedings. Having been assured that persecutions had actually taken place, the editor seemed to be satisfied. He did say, however, that the report “lacked confirmation.” Still it seems, from his tardy acknowledgment, that he really believed it all the time. He could hardly have helped doing so; but not a word in condemnation of the persecutions has appeared in the Cynosure. Is it necessary to add that the editor of the Cynosure is one of the Vice-Presidents of the National Reform Association? National Reform Physicians.
In his “clashing voices” department in the Christian Statesman of February 3, Mr. Gault quotes the following voice from James E. McGinnis, in the St. Louis Republican:— “This is not a Christian State, nor is it under a Christian Constitution, but one made for Jews, Mohammedans, Pagans, Infidels, and Christians alike; and that this may long remain the land of perfect religious liberty, is the fervent aspiration of every patriot and real lover of his kind.” True enough; but among patriots and real lovers of their kind your ardent National Reformer is not to be classed. And so Mr. Gault lifts his voice and causes it to “clash” against the one just quoted, as follows:— “You forget that it is impossible for our Government to show the same favor to every system of religion. It must discriminate in favor of one or the other. Christianity furnishes the only perfect system of morals, the only system that secures perfect liberty. This is why the Government does and must discriminate in favor of Christianity. For instance, if our Government would abolish Sabbath laws, it would disfranchise every Christian citizen. Such religious liberty is far from being perfect.” One peculiarity about the writings of M. A. Gault is that there is never any connection between his propositions and the proofs which he adduces in support thereof; between his premises and his conclusions. So in the above quotation; taken as a whole it is meaningless, but the detached statements may be understood. He says: “You forget that it is impossible for our Government to show the same favor to every system of religion.” We do not forget it, because we never knew it; and the writer in the Republican evidently is as ignorant as we are on that point, for he asserts that our Constitution as it is, does grant equal liberty to all religionists, and that therein its fairness lies. We would like to have some National Reformer demonstrate why this Government cannot treat all systems of religion alike. According to Mr. Gault’s statement, the National Reformers are working for what already exists. For, (1) He states that it is impossible for this Government to show the same favor to every system of religion. Then it must be that the United States does not show equal favor to men of all beliefs. (2) Mr. Gault goes farther, and declares that this Government does discriminate in favor of Christianity. If that is so, the National Reformers’ occupation is gone, for that is just what they profess to be working for. The story goes that a man was induced to believe that he needed a physician, and upon consulting one he was asked about his condition. In reply to questions, he stated that his strength was good, that he had a good appetite, and that he slept well. To which the physician replied, “Very well, we shall soon change all that.” Just such physicians the National Reformers will prove themselves to be for this country. There is freedom now; every man has liberty to worship God in whatever way he thinks God requires; but the National Reformers propose to change all that, so that no form of religion shall be tolerated except the one they think is right. When that time comes, then know that the ruin of the nation is at hand. Senator Crockett’s Religious Liberty Speech
By Editor
No one who sees this number of the SENTINEL should pass by the article on pp. 28-30, which is chiefly a reprint of a speech by the Hon. Robert H. Crockett, of the Arkansas Senate. We are very sure that whoever begins to read it will finish it. The circumstances of its delivery were these: In 1885 the Arkansas Legislature repealed that section of the Sunday law which granted to observers of the seventh day the privilege of laboring on Sunday without being molested. Immediately a bitter persecution began against those who conscientiously rested on the seventh day of the week, and labored the other six. At the last session of the Legislature, Senator Crockett introduced what might be called a religious liberty bill, and it was in support of this bill that he made the speech which we quote. The cause of religious liberty owes a great deal to Senator Crockett. He made this bill the object of his special care, and so successful were his efforts that it passed both Houses by a large majority. The effect of his noble efforts in behalf of religious liberty is not confined to Arkansas, whose citizens reap the immediate benefit; but his eloquent words will stir up honest people in all parts of the United States, to protest against the iniquity of interference by the State in matters purely religious. Senator Crockett is a grandson of Col. David Crockett, the hero of the Alamo, of whom he has shown himself to be a worthy descendant.