American Sentinel, Vol. 9, No. 6
For instance, in the *Evangelist*, of this city, a Presbyterian paper, whose ediPage 1
Earlier text: For instance, in the *Evangelist*, of this city, a Presbyterian paper, whose ediThe Maryland Court of Appeals on Sunday Laws.
THE following from the Baltimore American of January 24, tells the story of the Judefind case, appealed from Kent County:— January 23, the Court of Appeals handed down a number of important opinions. The first was the now celebrated Kent County Seventh-day Adventist case, the opinion being written by Judge Boyd. John W. Judefind, a Kent County farmer who had embraced the Seventh-day Adventist faith, was arrested for husking corn on Sunday. He was fined $5 by a magistrate, appealed to the Circuit Court, was tried before the court, convicted and fined $5. He brought his case before the Court of Appeals by petition in the nature of a writ of error. First. That section 247 of article 27 of the code is void, because it is in violation of the first paragraph of the fourteenth article of the Constitution of the United States. Second. That said statute is void because it is in violation of article 36 of the Bill of Rights of the constitution of Maryland. Third. That the Circuit Court for Kent County had no jurisdiction to try and convict traverser, since the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction; because the warrant charged no offense under the statute, as it failed to set forth that the husking of corn on Sunday was not a work of necessity or charity; because the warrant was issued and served on Sunday; because the bond of the traverser is void, because it charges “Sabbath-breaking,” and no such offense is known to the laws of this State. The attorney general moved to quash the writ of error, on the ground that no writ of error lies to this court from the decision of the Circuit Court on an appeal to it from the judgment of a justice of the peace. That motion, says the court, must prevail.
If the petitioner wanted to try the constitutionality of the law he should have applied for the writ of certiorari upon that specific ground, and this court could then have reviewed the case. Alleged defects in45warrant and bond cannot be reviewed here. Having settled the case on the ground that no writ of error lies to this court in the case, the Court of Appeals, for fear that some doubt may rest as to their views of the main issue attempted to be raised to the validity of the arrest under the constitutions of the State and the United States—the Court of Appeals says that the law complained of is not in violation of these codes of organic law. Numerous decisions sustain this view, and nature, experience, and observation suggest the propriety and necessity of one day of rest, and the day generally adopted is Sunday. There will always be differences as to how the day shall be spent, but the advantage is too apparent to doubt. In interpreting these differences we must not place unreasonable constructions upon them; but a man, if he defies the law of the State, must expect to be punished. If the position of the plaintiff be correct, then the law prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sunday, etc., is unconstitutional, as would be most, if not all, of our laws concerning Sunday. The court says that Sunday has been observed as a day of rest from the foundation of the State, and cites Kilgore vs. Mills et al. (6 G. and J., 274, and 11, Maryland, 313) to prove the position, and it says the laws are looking to a still surer making of the day a day of rest. Writ of error quashed, with costs. It will be seen that the court went out of its way to sustain the Sunday law of the State of Maryland. There remains but one course for Maryland Adventists, namely, to disobey the law “and quietly suffer the penalty.” This is the course advised by President Fairchild in his work on moral philosophy, in such cases, and it is the course which has been pursued by the servants of God in all ages. This was the course pursued by the three Hebrews when commanded to worship the golden image in the plain of Dura. Dan. 3: 1-26. The prophet Daniel pursued the same course when forbidden by royal decree to offer any petition to any god or man for thirty days, save of the king only (chapter 6); and the same course was likewise followed by the apostles when forbidden by the magistrates to speak in the name of Jesus. Acts 4 and 5. We are not to resist rulers, neither are we to obey them when to do so is to sin against God. We are to obey God and take the consequences. [These items are taken from the column of “News Worth Telling” in the Christian Statesman of January 27, and are given just as they appeared there except that we call the pagan holiday by its proper name, “Sunday,” instead of dubbing it “Sabbath,” as does the Statesman. The Lord says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;” and we are not going to say that the first day is the Sabbath. “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.”] A COMMITTEE of five Episcopal clergymen, in Providence, R. I., was recently appointed to consider the better enforcement of the laws against the desecration of Sunday.—At the persistent solicitation of the workmen, the Holyoke paper mills have ceased to run on Sunday. The mills will stop at midnight Saturday and start at midnight Sunday.—Eight thousand candy, cigar and other stores are open in Philadelphia on Sunday. A petition signed by nine hundred voters was prepared by the Philadelphia Sabbath Association and presented to the mayor on last Friday asking that all stores, except those provided for in the act of 1794 as necessary, shall be closed on Sunday.—A canvass of the new city council of Toronto shows a majority against the resubmission of the Sunday street car question to a vote this summer.—In his address at the last annual meeting of the American Sabbath Union, Rev. Plum of Boston, charged the secularization of public thought on the Sunday question mainly upon the Sunday newspapers.—The Congregationalist states that the custom of giving quiet dinner parties on Sunday evening is increasing especially in our cities. This custom must cease if the Sunday is to remain.—Comparatively few persons who break the Sunday laws are prosecuted; and yet $1,996 were paid into the sinking fund of the Pennsylvania treasury from such fines during the year 1893. If all cases of Sunday breaking were fined, such as railroads and others, the State treasury would be filled.—The Theocrat of Johnstown, boldly asserts that the Sunday-travelling habit of many ministers, leading Christians, camp meeting projectors and managers, are among the chief promoters of Sunday breaking. If the religious press of our land would ring out with the clarion voice of our contemporary of the Conemaugh Valley this accusation could not long be truthfully made.—At the request of the Evangelical Alliance, all the ministers of St. Louis preached Sunday, Jan. 14, on “The Observance of the ‘Lord’s day’ in Secular Matters.” This was the result of the letter sent to the alliance by the Retail Clerk’s Association concerning Sunday opening of which we made mention last week. A WRITER in the News has been discussing the question, “Is Protestantism a mere negation?” The answer to such a question must depend very much upon the signification given to the term “Protestantism.” If by that word is meant only what is seen in the most of that worship which differs in form from Catholicism, it may be doubtful whether it is a “mere negation” or not. Certainly a large part of it is not much more than this, and is so rapidly identifying itself with Romanism that it will soon cease to be even that. But if by that term we mean the faith of men like Luther, Wycliffe, and others who in former times earnestly contended against Rome for “the faith once delivered unto the saints,” and of the few who are contending in like manner to-day, then the question may be answered with an emphatic negative. Protestantism is not a mere negation, but a positive and most powerful force. True Protestantism is something very different from a mere denial of the errors of popery. It is a denial of those doctrines, just as truth is always a denial of error, although this is not the proper way to speak of truth. Truth comes first and error afterwards, so that error is a denial of truth, rather than truth a denial of error. And this is all error is; but truth is a positive, living force. It stands alone, beautiful and complete in itself, ignoring all error, and clothed with the power and life of Him who gave it birth. True Protestantism is the gospel of God. It is “Protestantism” only because of the protest of the princes whose faith led them to stand out against the corrupt communion of Rome. It is a belief, a faith. It was not created by the protest of the princes, but only acquired by that a new name. It existed long before “Protestantism,” as a name, was known; long before there was any occasion for such a name. It existed, indeed, from all eternity; for the gospel of God is the “everlasting gospel,” being “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” Rom. 1:16; Rev. 14:6. The only protest that is needed against Rome’s errors is the proclamation of this gospel, this power of God unto salvation. This is the most effective protest that could be made, for the straightforward proclamation of divine truth is the best barrier that can be raised across the path of the error that denies it. The worst thing that can happen for error is to be contrasted with the truth. The worst thing that can happen for popery,—the power of the pope and the priest and the virgin unto salvation,—is to be contrasted with the power of God unto salvation, which is the gospel. This gospel can be proclaimed without any reference to popery whatever, and still be just as strong and effective a protest against it. But the adherents of the papacy wish to make it appear that Protestantism is something dependent upon popery, a mere denial of the doctrines of popery, and therefore something which could not have existed without it. They wish it to appear that popery was first, and Protestantism came after it. But it is only the name that came after it, and not the principles. Popery is the thing that denies, and not Protestantism. Gospel truth was first in the field; it was there from all eternity. It was preached to the children of Israel in the wilderness (Heb. 4:1, 2); it was preached by the apostles eighteen hundred years ago; it was preached by a faithful few in the Dark Ages; it is preached by the “remnant” of Christ’s followers to-day. The gospel is not on the defensive; it does not care for popish innovations; but now, as ever, it calmly and majestically pursues its way to every nation and people and tongue, being “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” The gospel is a positive force; it is an infinite force. Popery cannot stop it, nor any other power that can be brought against it. This is the force which is in the true religion, the true Protestantism. It is a force which lives and works in individuals, in the Word of God which abides in the hearts of Christians. If your religion does not contain this force, it is not the gospel of God. If your heart does not feel this power, if your life does not manifest it, you are not yet in the way of salvation.—Present Truth, London, Eng. The Sabbath That Christ Kept.
CHRISTIANITY is based on the redemption work of Christ. Man had broken God's law in Eden and the curse of a broken law hung over humanity. A law was made at Sinai and written on tables of stone of which God said: “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them.” Man failed to obey this law so help was laid on One who was mighty and able to save to the uttermost. In the fullness of time when God's purpose had matured, which he purposed before the world began, he sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law. His office was to magnify the law and make it honorable. This he did by living a life of perfect obedience to it in every jot and tittle, and he proved it to be “holy and just and good.” Holiness is sinlessness. Sin is the transgression of the law, so holiness is perfect obedience to the law. Christ was holy and as such was acceptable to God, and as such was fitted to become a sacrifice for sin. Had Christ not obeyed the law perfectly he would have been a sinner. “The wages of sin is death.” Had Christ sinned46his death could have had no redemptive power. It would have been the penalty of a broken law. It was his perfect obedience to God's law that qualified him to intercede for us. Had he broken the law in one point he would have been guilty of all. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” was a part of God's law, and the day was expressly declared to be the seventh day. We know that Christ kept the Sabbath day holy, for he declared himself to be the “Lord of the Sabbath day.” Had he not done so, he would have been a sinner, not able to redeem even himself. John says, “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk even as he walked.” 1 John 2:6. The 4th verse reads, “He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him.” If we do not obey this Sabbath law as Christ did we are convinced of the law as transgressors. Christ said in Matt. 5:18, R.V. “Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished;” that is, not till the end of this age. The enforcement of God's law, then, is a purpose that cannot fail. Christ said on another occasion, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail.” The destruction of the material universe, then, would not thwart God's purposes, as would the failure of the least part of his moral law. Christ's success as a redeemer depended upon his keeping the seventh day. Had he kept Sunday, as do so many of his professed followers, we would be still in our sins for the law would remain broken. He could only redeem men from the curse of the law which he obeyed himself. Christ never kept the first day of the week so that if it were possible for God to alter his Sabbath law which he made obligatory “forever,” and he did alter it, we should have no mediator under the new law. Christ could be no refuge for us under a broken law which he never kept himself. That God made no change at his resurrection is proved by Christ's words in Matt. 24:20 where, in anticipation of the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened forty years afterwards, he said, “But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter neither on the Sabbath day.” This was spoken to a company with whom he habitually kept the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment. THE LORD FAILED TO RESPOND.
By J. W. Wood
The effort made to secure the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday was the most conspicuous and united effort ever made by Christians in the world's history, to secure divine interference in human affairs. Elijah once made an appeal to Jehovah as between God and Baal, with very decisive results. In this trial he rejected all human adjuncts; he flooded the altar with water, and at the decisive moment he appealed to the Lord God of Abraham, who sent a divine fire which licked up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones, the dust, and the water. In this latest case of appeal to God all human adjuncts calculated to assist him were liberally added. Congress was besieged for a suitable law, as never before in its history. It was flooded with literature and correspondence. Boycotts were freely threatened against all those who did not vote according to dictation. Two million and a half of dollars, which by circumstances became five millions, were placed before the directors as a bribe for closing. Twenty-five million, eight hundred and twenty-five thousand and eighty-six people were counted as petitioners for its closing, thus giving impetus to the threatened boycott, while eighty-seven thousand five hundred and seven were all that opposed it. The one represented united Christendom, while the other represented “a few vagabond Jews and infidels.” The millions of Christians are supposed to have prayed for its closing, and they certainly performed herculean labors for the space of two years in that interest, while nobody prayed against it. All conventions, conferences, synods, alliances and religious gatherings of every name, enforced the threatened boycott and passed denunciatory resolutions to enforce the closing. At the least appearance of success God was given all the glory, and hallelujahs were sung in his praise. The President of the United States was called upon for armed troops to shoot down offenders. Pestilence and cyclones were invoked, and the most direful consequences were predicted in case of failure to close. “And it came to pass that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.” Baal was as silent as he was in Elijah's day. Had there been the least sign of interference it would have been pushed to the uttermost in the interest of “the venerable day of the sun.” It was not a contest between Sunday and the “Sabbath of the Lord our God,” for the latter did not appear in the controversy. The name and character of God's day, given to it by the Most High, were stolen from it and attached to the false Sabbath, which its enemies would thrust into its place. From the human standpoint it seemed impossible but that the gates should be closed, but in God's providence the failure was made signal and complete. When the case reached Judge Goggin's court it stood, two judges for a decree which would permit of closing, and one that stood opposed; the triumph was now considered as won: but, behold! the one man triumphed over the two, and the gates could not be shut. Had not Judge Goggin appeared in court that morning, the desired end would have been gained. A fit of apoplexy would have stopped him; an attack of colic, a slip on an orange peel, a sickness in his family, a slight mental influence, or if the charge of drunkenness, which was brought against him, had been true, of which there is no evidence, a little excess of drink would have hindered him from appearing. Had the gates been as signally closed as they were signally kept open, it would have been construed as a clear indorsement of Sunday as God's transferred Sabbath day. On the other hand may not the total failure of the tremendous efforts made for closing be triumphant evidence that God will not give his sanction to a day of human substitution? Will the National Reform combination learn no lesson from all of this? They invoked the issue and called upon God for vindication. They were beaten at every point by his providence. They are not ignorant men. Their chief spokesman, W. F. Crafts, made this plain at Saratoga. He must see the fatal lapse in the logic which makes void the law of God, by putting the wild solar holiday of all paganism in the place of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Is not the denunciation of Christ in Matthew 15:7 of tremendous force as towards all such men? “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophecy of you saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” In Mark 7:9, he adds, “Full well ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your own tradition.” They Will Not Confess: They Dare Not Deny.
THE Catholic journals in the United States neither made any reply to the specific charges formulated against the Catholic hierarchy in regard to its declared claims and purposes, nor do they attempt any defense of them. It is apparently quite impossible to extract from one of them either a denial of those claims on the one hand, or an acknowledgment that they are true on the other. The fact, of course, is that the organs of the hierarchy are in a dilemma and unwilling to impale themselves on either horn of it. If they should acknowledge as church canons, for example, the following, that, (1.) “The Roman Catholic Church has the right to deprive the civil authority of the entire government of public schools; (2,) That she has the right of perpetuating the union of Church and State; (3,) That she has the right to require that the Catholic religion shall be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all others, and (4,) That she has the right of requiring the State not to permit the free expression of opinion,”—if open acknowledgment were made of these, which are political claims of the hierarchy, by the Catholic journals, it might shock, to some extent, the sentiment of many Catholics who consider47themselves loyal American citizens; being themselves ignorant of the political policy and claims of the close corporation by which they are governed—the teaching church, the hierarchy. On the other hand the Catholic journals cannot deny what that hierarchy has openly proclaimed as canon law and the constitution of the papacy. They cannot be induced to respond to any challenge involving these facts, nor to admit any such information into their columns that might have the effect of opening the eyes of the millions, dupes of the hierarchy. They much prefer to remain doggedly silent, or whine for sympathy from non-Catholics quite as ignorant as millions of the hierarchy's own subjects of its aims and purposes. Rome ever wears a mask.—American Constitution. Wants to Imprison and to Hang Sabbath-Keepers.
A REPRESENTATIVE of the International Religious Liberty Association sends the following to the secretary of the association:— While working in Chattanooga, some weeks since, I became acquainted with an old journalist and ex-attorney, who, in conversation upon the Sunday movement and legislation, affirmed that Sunday laws and the rights of conscience have nothing to do with each other; but that such laws belong to the civil branch of legislation, and that all violations of Sunday laws should be punished. He further affirmed that as for himself he is in favor of punishing those who break these laws, with imprisonment in jail, and if they violate it a good deal, he would put them in the penitentiary, and for very bad offenses, he would hang them. This man is simply more outspoken than others; thousands would say the same if they spoke their real sentiments, and other thousands will doubtless come to the same point under stress of what they will imagine are divine judgments sent on the people because of their disregard of Sunday. The Scripture says of the two-horned beast of the 13th of Revelation: “He had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” The image of the beast is apostate Protestantism dominating the civil power, and, like the beast, the papacy, its badge of authority is the false Sabbath. THE Roman Catholics have, or at least had, McNamara, the anti-Catholic lecturer in jail in Kansas City; and a popish paper suggests for him five years in the penitentiary. McNamara's offense is telling the naked truth about the confessional and the nunneries. It is not to be supposed that Rome will stand that sort of thing very much longer in this country. Already the Western Watchman boasts that if such things “were printed in a newspaper the sheet would be confiscated and its publisher fined;” and when the bill introduced into the House, Dec. 13, 1893, by Mr. Hayes of Iowa, shall have become a law, everything of the kind can certainly be excluded from the United States mails. Rome is beginning to feel and exercise her power. THERE is a vacancy in the Board of Regents of the University of this State, caused by the death of the Right Rev. Francis McNeirny, Catholic Bishop of Albany. This vacancy the legislature must fill by election, and as the place was formerly filled by a papist, some of the papers are urging that it be filled from the ranks of that communion. Touching this suggestion, the New York Sun (Democratic) says:— The Republicans of the legislature are not likely to consult the Times-Union in filling this vacancy, though they may go to the town of Albany, where it is published, for their candidate. If they establish any religious test or condition of membership of the Board, they will be taking a new departure. The religious convictions of Regents of the University form no part of the qualifications of candidates. The old and well-established rule of filling such vacancies with reference to the question of fitness only, is a good one which cannot be departed from with safety.
This is sensible. There is no sense in the idea that a Roman Catholic should be chosen simply because a member of that church formerly held the office. Men should be chosen for civil offices without the slightest reference to their religious faith. Our laws as yet know no religious qualifications for office. Since the foregoing was written, the following item from the Albion, Nebraska, News, has come to our notice:— The Catholic deputy sheriff has at last been announced, and Phil Langan is the lucky man. They are surely entitled to this much recognition for electing the populist ticket last fall; in fact, it is hard to believe that they will be satisfied with so insignificant a portion.
Has it indeed come to this that the offices must be divided up among the churches? Some Pennsylvania Law.
By C. P. B.
PENNSYLVANIA has a law, enacted in 1855, which provides that bequests to religious and charitable bodies shall be invalid if the will be made within a month of the decedent's death. Some time since one, John L. Knight, of Philadelphia, made a bequest to the Friendship Liberal League, and then very inconsiderately died within thirty days. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has just set the will aside on the ground that the Liberal League is to all intents and purposes the same to its members as a church, and its creed and principles the same as a religion. Hence, the law of 1855 applies to this body. This decision seems to be all right, but the Christian Reformer finds fault with it, not because the Liberal League loses the bequest, but because of the ground upon which the decision was made. The Reformer says:— This may be good law as far as it goes. But there are legal precedents that give a better ground for the denial of the validity of this bequest. The court incidentally referred to these grounds when it said in the present case: “Looked at from a Christian standpoint it might be said that such a bequest was irreligious and immoral, that it was unworthy to be treated as charity, and that its tendency was positively hurtful. This might be true from the point of observation occupied by an impartial humanitarian or patriot.” We have not seen the dissenting opinion of Justice Dean, but we presume that he holds to the decision given by such legal authorities as Justice Sharswood, who holds that a bequest to an infidel or antichristian society is null and void because of the intrinsically immoral and hurtful character of such an organization.
We have no sympathy whatever with infidelity, but we have as little with the Christianity(?) that must be shielded behind civil statutes and be accorded special privileges to compete successfully with infidelity. A man has a right to hold and to teach any religion or no religion, and to devote his property to the promulgation of any doctrine he pleases while living, even in Pennsylvania; and having that right what kind of law is it that would deny him the right to do the same thing after death? Certainly a man ought to be permitted to dispose of his property by will in any way that he might legally and justly dispose of it during his lifetime. THE Congressional Record of January 25, has the following, second column of page 1503:— Mr. Frye. I introduce, by request of the officers of the National Reform movement, a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which I ask may be read and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The joint resolution (S. R. 56) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States was read the first time by its title and the second time at length, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, as follows:— “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following amended form of the preamble of the Constitution of the United States be proposed for ratification by conventions in the several States; which, when ratified by conventions in three-fourths of the States, shall be valid as a part of the said Constitution, namely:— “We, the people of the United States, devoutly acknowledging the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and nations; grateful to him for our civil and religious liberty, and encouraged by the assurances of his Word to invoke his guidance, as a Christian nation, according to his appointed way, through Jesus Christ, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.” The same joint resolution was introduced in the House on the same day by Mr. Morse of Massachusetts. It was in both cases referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. “Religious Liberty Library,” No. 18.
By Editor
This important number of the Library is now ready. It is entitled “Christ and the Sabbath: or Christ’s Faithfulness in Sabbath-keeping,” being substantially the same matter as appeared in the November Home Missionary, as a sermon by Elder A. T. Jones, at the Lansing, Mich., camp meeting. It has been revised and very much improved, some important additions being made. It presents a striking parallel between the course of the Pharisees and Herodians in accusing, persecuting, and even killing Christ, for not keeping the Sabbath according to their own ideas, and the course pursued by the “Pharisees and Herodians” of our own day against those who follow Christ’s example. This is an excellent number to follow up Nos. 14, 15, and 16. “Christ and the Sabbath” shows what the true Sabbath is; “Rome’s Challenge” shows what the spurious Sabbath is; “Our Answer” shows our attitude during the contest between the true and the spurious Sabbaths; and No. 18 sets forth Christ as our example in continuing faithful to the true Sabbath, and shows that since Jesus was persecuted for Sabbath-breaking when he was Sabbath-keeping, so when we are persecuted for Sabbath-breaking when we are Sabbath-keeping, we are in “most blessed company.” Will every Sabbath-keeper show his faithfulness by giving this number of the Library at least as wide a circulation as any previous number? Thirty-two pages, price 4 cents; fifty for $1.00. Orders can be filled at once by the Pacific Press, 43 Bond Street, New York. In addition to the note quoted in the preceding paragraph, the Watchman has, in the same issue, namely January 25, an editorial of nearly a column written in defense of mob law for anti-popish lecturers. The Watchman says:— Who can blame them [Roman Catholics] if they rise up to strike the blasphemer in the mouth? These miscreant travellers should not be protected. If their occupation excites to riot they should be made to choose some other calling. If they cannot be restrained by statute or ordinance let them carry their hides to the market; and if they get holed, let it be charged to the profit and loss of the business. The editor of the Watchman is a Roman Catholic priest, “Rev.” D. S. Phelan, a professed minister of Him, “who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not, but committed the keeping of his soul to him who judgeth righteously.” But “as the heavens are higher than the earth,” so are God’s ways higher than the ways of the papacy. APROPOS of the leader in this paper on the subject of Roman Catholic lawlessness, is the following editorial note from the Western Watchman (popish paper published in St. Louis, Mo.):— Mr. Tiernan wrote a very sensible letter to the Kansas City papers on the subject of the McNamara riot. He said the fellow should not be protected by the police. If the substance of his lecture were printed in a newspaper the sheet would be confiscated and its publishers fined. If it were sent through the mails the sender would be put in prison. Why should the police be detailed to protect the speaker, when the writer is clapped in prison? By all means leave the McNamaras and the Slatterys to the “small boys.” The Watchman’s “small boys” are full-grown Roman Catholics, who generally, under the leadership of priests, resort to mob violence when anybody, especially an ex-priest or an ex-nun, goes to telling “tales out of school.” These wayward “children of the church” know too much. DECEMBER 29, Mr. Crafts, late of the so-called Christian Statesman, lectured before the Baltimore Ministerial Union on his favorite theme, i. e., how to make people keep Sunday. After enumerating the difficulties encountered in enforcing the “civil” Sunday, Mr. Crafts said that in the State of Maryland, a new element has arisen, namely, human sympathy for those who have been imprisoned for working on Sunday. He then ridiculed this sympathy and tried (with poor success, however, be it said to the credit of his audience), to provoke a laugh at the expense of the recently imprisoned men. But he seemed to stand in awe of the milk of human kindness, and so told his hearers how it could be effectually dried up. His plan to overcome this dangerous element, human sympathy, is to have each minister “write personally to his representative” in the legislature protesting against any repeal or modification of the Maryland Sunday law. “Write!” “write!” “WRITE!” says this modern inquisitor general, who, while professing to deprecate the prosecution of Sabbath-keepers for private Sunday work, covertly aids and abets it. Maryland Sabbath-keepers have nothing to hope from man, but Deo adjuvante, non timendum. The injunction of our Saviour is to the point: “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” NEW YORK CITY has $55,588,725 worth of untaxed church property. THE Methodist Protestant defends the persecution of Adventists in the interests of a legal Sunday. It is evident that the Protestant (?) feels the weakness of its cause else it would not appeal to civil law. Only the weak want help. WE learn from the Review and Herald, of Battle Creek, Mich., that W. A. McCutchen and Elmer C. Keck, the Seventh-day Adventist minister and teacher, fined $50 each, and costs, some weeks ago, in Gainesville, Ga., for Sunday work, have been indicted for the same offense, by the grand jury and will be tried the last week in February. AN exchange asks: “What is Roman Catholicism?” Let the Scriptures answer: “That man of sin,” the “Son of perdition,” “That wicked,” “The beast,” “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” Such is Roman Catholicism. And yet it is no worse than the so-called Protestantism that indorses its principles and apes its methods. The papal beast and his image finally share the same fate: “These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.” THE Christian Intelligencer thinks that the worst enemies of Sunday are those who invoke the civil law against observers of the Sabbath. It says:— The worst enemies of a day of rest and worship are those who enforce the penalties of the civil law against persons who conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week, and therefore pursue their ordinary vocations on the first day. So long as such persons do not hinder others from enjoying the rest and privilege of Sunday, they are entitled to pursue their own chosen course without let or hindrance. Surely they are; but are they entitled to pursue their own course any more than are others who “do not hinder others from enjoying the rest and privilege of Sunday”? Is not the whole system of Sunday legislation at fault? Is it a correct principle that requires a man to have some religion before he can do as he pleases so long as he does not hinder others from enjoying like liberty? THE Christian Advocate and the Examiner, two religious weeklies of this city are before us, both bearing date of February 1. The Advocate complains that lynchings are becoming common in the North; and the Examiner finds fault because the governor of Florida did not override the order of the courts of that State and prevent the recent prize fight. We have nothing but detestation for prize fights. They are disgraceful and degrading; but is their influence as pernicious and as far-reaching as would be the example of a governor himself overriding the law and usurping powers not given him by the laws which he is sworn to uphold and to administer? Certainly not; and yet the Examiner says of such cases:— What a State needs is a governor of the Andrew Jackson type who is capable of making and enforcing his own laws for about fifteen minutes. If Governor Mitchell had had the nerve to send his militia to the spot, arrest the fighters in the act and land them in jail, it would go hard with the State of Florida if its lawyers could not afterwards find law enough to justify his action.
No State needs anything of the kind. Prize fights are evil, and it is anything but creditable to our civilization that public exhibitions of that kind are possible; but better a thousand acts of brutality than one of usurpation. Cannot the religious press see that in advocating usurpation by the State it is inciting mob violence by the people? If executive officers may make law in emergencies, what wonder if the people do the same thing when by some startling crime their feelings are outraged. THE Independent is out with another apology for Rome, based, this time, upon the opinions expressed by the Catholic press on the school question. “The Pilot, of Boston,” says the Independent, “which is edited with great intelligence and with much of the spirit of New England’s fairness, says that the letters which we have printed [the letters from the Catholic bishops] are fairly representative of the whole church.” As stated by us last week, of these thirty letters only one expressed unqualified disapproval of the proposed Roman Catholic raid on the public school funds; two are indefinite; six are clearly evasive; while all the other twenty-one are in favor of it—some with conditions and others rabidly and unconditionally. And one of these gives the words of Cardinal Gibbons that: “This [Catholic] education our children cannot have in the public schools, therefore we wish to have our own schools; and as we cannot, without the help of the State, we desire a share of the public school fund to enable us to have such schools.” Yes, these letters are doubtless, as the Pilot confesses, “fairly representative of the whole [papal] church;” yet some how or other the Independent evolves from them the remarkable conclusion that it is “right in interpreting them as showing that the Catholics do not propose to overthrow the public school system.” The Independent is a remarkable paper indeed.