The American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 37
THERE is no law to prevent a barber or any other tradesman from resting on SundaPage 1
THERE is no law to prevent a barber or any other tradesman from resting on Sunday, or any other day of the week. There are several shops in Denver which close every Sunday, and have been following this custom for a year or more. Public sympathy is with the man who does what he believes is right. The way to close is to shut up shop on Sunday. If any number of barbers favor Sunday rest they should take it. Others will follow. Daniels & Fisher close at 6 P. M. every day, without reference to what other dealers do. The Graphic closes early on Saturday, often at noon, without regard to what other printing offices do. Enforced Sunday rest is wrong. Every man knows his own business best, and he should not be interfered with as long as he does not interfere with his neighbors.—Colorado Graphic. An Excellent Doom.
By Alonzo T. Jones
Under the heading of, “A Crime against Liberalism,” some time ago, the Inter-Ocean criticised the decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on the Bible in the public schools, which is as clear a case of begging the question as could be, and is as full of sophistry as an egg is full of meat. The third sentence in the article bewails the unfortunate condition of the children of Wisconsin, after this sort:— That the school children of Wisconsin should be doomed, by a decree of the Supreme Court, to learn nothing of the most marvelous literature extant, seems incredible. To be sure, what a dreadful doom it is indeed, that the Roman Catholic children, in the State of Wisconsin, shall not be compelled to listen to Protestant prayers, and to take part in Protestant forms of worship, and to listen to the reading of the Protestant Bible in Protestant ways! What a dreadful doom that the children of Jewish parents shall not be compelled to worship as God, one whom they believe to be not God at all! What a dreadful doom it is that the children of unbelievers in the State of Wisconsin shall not be compelled to receive the doctrine and submit to the forms of the Protestant denominations, who think that in themselves is absorbed all the merits and virtues of Christianity! And how dreadful, above all, is the doom of all the people of Wisconsin, that they shall not be compelled to pay money for the support of the religious views of a few self-righteous Protestants. We rather think that the people of Wisconsin will survive the terrors of this dreadful doom. We agree with the Inter-Ocean that the Bible contains the most marvelous literature extant; but that a Supreme Court of any State should, according to the Constitution of that State, protect people from being compelled to listen to the reading of that literature is certainly the right thing to do; and that such a proceeding should seem incredible to the Inter-Ocean, does not speak very highly of the sense of justice, of right, and of American principles entertained by that paper. And that such a paper should soberly set forth any such idea as that this decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin should doom the school children of that State to learn nothing of the Bible, speaks a good deal less for the spirit of fairness and logical discernment that ought to characterize such a paper. The decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin no more dooms the children of that State to learn nothing of the Bible, than it dooms them to learn nothing of how to hoe corn. Every man, woman, and child, in the State of Wisconsin, is at perfect liberty to learn all that may be learned of this most marvelous literature extant, and the Inter-Ocean knows it. Likewise, under this decision, no man nor woman nor child, in the State of Wisconsin, can be compelled to pay for the reading of that literature nor to listen to its being read; and why should the Inter-Ocean demand that it should be otherwise? Again says the Inter-Ocean:— It is as needful that he [the child] should know who Christ was and what he said, as it is that he should know who Columbus was and what he did. Yes it is a good deal more needful. It is as much more needful as that Christ is more than Columbus was; and as what Christ said, is of much more weight and importance than what Columbus ever did. But it does not follow that because a thing is essential that therefore the State must teach it. The very fact that it is so much290more needful that the child should know who Christ was and what he said, that is the very reason why it is impossible for the State to teach these things. The State cannot do it. How can the State teach who Christ was? What facilities has the State for knowing who he was, that it shall decide this question and teach it with authority? That is a large question. It has been the question of the ages. It began when he was here. “Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?” But it is not enough that we know who men say that he is, or was; but the question is, Who is he? Will the Inter-Ocean tell who Christ is? and will that paper go so far as to say that what it says Christ is shall be taught to everybody in the State of Illinois, or anywhere else at public expense or by State authority? But from the article in the Inter-Ocean it would seem that it proposes that who Christ is and what he said, shall be taught to the children in school, in the same manner as the question of who Columbus was and what he did. If that be the purpose of the Inter-Ocean, then no Christian could ever consent to any such teaching. To put Christ and what he said, in such a place and to teach it in such a way as that, is to deny who Christ really is, and to undo all the force of what he said. Nor does the act of teaching the history of Christ necessitate the teaching of his divinity. We tell the scholar what the motives of Columbus were, we leave him to judge of the wisdom of the motive. Well suppose the public school teacher undertakes to tell children in school what the motive of Christ was in coming to the world, and leaves the children to judge of that motive, as they would judge of the motives of Columbus, what is that but to teach them to sit in judgment upon the Lord? What is it in fact but the teaching of downright infidelity? When the motive of Christ is set before children or men, it is not his intention at all that they shall judge of that motive. It is that they shall believe it and make it a part of their lives, and that to neglect to do so is to imperil the eternal destiny of their souls. Any man can judge of the motives of Columbus with no danger whatever. A child may judge of the motives of Columbus as he pleases, and think of them as he chooses, and it cannot effect him in the least; but neither man nor child can do such a thing with the motives of Jesus Christ, without injury to himself both in this life and the life to come. And that the Inter-Ocean should set forth such a proposition leads us seriously to doubt whether it truly believes in the motive of Christ as it really is, or whether it judges his motive as it does those of Columbus or any other explorer. We should like to see the Inter-Ocean attempt to carry out its own statement and give us an example of the act of teaching the history of Christ without teaching his divinity. The first question would be, who was he? The only answer is that he is “the Christ the Son of the living God.” But that declares his divinity. Again, when he was born what was he to be called? “Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.” And that also teaches his divinity. And again, “They shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” That is his name because that is what he is. And the history goes on following him round about Judea, as he went healing the sick, restoring the demoniac, making the lame to walk, and the blind to see, stilling the tempest, and raising the dead. And all these things teach his divinity. The history goes on to say that he was crucified, and that that even happened amid such surroundings that the centurion who commanded the soldiers declared, “Verily, this man was the Son of God.” And that teaches his divinity. The history goes on to say that he arose from the dead, and was seen of his disciples, and the people in crowds; that his disciples touched him, and ate with him, and associated with him for a period of forty days after they had seen him crucified, and dead upon the cross, and buried in the sepulchre. And then that he ascended up into heaven, and that there he sits at the right hand of the throne of God. And all that teaches his divinity. In fact every particular and every item in the life of the Saviour from the manger in Bethlehem until his ascension, teaches nothing else than the divinity of Christ. The history cannot be mentioned without teaching that divinity, and any proposition to the contrary is in itself conclusive proof that the one making the statement does not believe in his divinity. And because this history is the history of his divinity, because the words of Christ are the words of “God with us,” this is the reason why the words are to be believed, and not judged when they are taught. It is not for man to judge God; it is not for the sinner to sit in judgment upon his Saviour. As this is to be believed, and as the understanding of it is wholly of faith, and as the record is witnessed to faith by the spirit of God,—for this reason it is impossible for any governmental power on earth to teach either the history or the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Christ himself committed that work to the Church, and any church that consents that the State may ever perform that work, allows that she herself has lost the power to do it. And any State that proposes to do such a thing, simply proposes to rob the Church of its prerogative and to usurp that which never can belong to the State, because Christ never committed it to the State. If men would believe Christ more and judge him less, there would be far less demand that the State shall teach religion. And if men would believe the Bible more, and judge it and interpret it less, there would be very little heard of any question of the Bible in the public schools. Then people would have enough confidence in the Bible, and in its divine author, to trust it to maintain its own cause, without demanding that it be bolstered up by such a pillar of sand as is the State in such a place. THE priceless truths of the Bible are best taught to our youth in the church, the Sabbath and the parochial schools, the social and religious meetings, and above all, by parents in the home circle. There these truths may be explained and enforced, the spiritual welfare of the child guarded and protected, and his spiritual nature directed and cultivated in accordance with the dictates of the parental conscience.—Judge Lyon, of Wisconsin! “We demand,” say the California Sunday-law advocates, “the enactment and enforcement of an intelligent and rational Sunday law, making one day in seven a rest day, and especially do we demand that all places of secular business be closed on that day, and we further demand that suitable penalties be enacted for the enforcement of the same.” To prohibit secular business is to permit religious; this is therefore a demand that the State give religion a monopoly of one day in the week; and yet we are assured by these gentlemen of elastic veracity that they are demanding civil legislation only! Why the Government Should not Employ Chaplains.
SUNDAY, August 24, Rev. J. B. Hawthorne, D. D., the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, Georgia, preached in the First Baptist Church in Washington, D. C. On this occasion, Dr. Hawthorne chose for his text the words of the Saviour: “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” The following paragraphs are from a report of his sermon, published in the Washington Post, of August 25:— We have the freest and best Government in the world, and yet it is sometimes oppressive, because it steps out of its own sphere to meddle with affairs that belong exclusively to the realm of religion. We boast of having a land where Church and State are completely dissevered, but our boast is not literally and absolutely true. The things that are Cæsar’s are sometimes mixed in with the things that are God’s; and those unlawful and unhallowed complications result from our lack of understanding as to the relations which should ever exist between religion and the State. It is our duty to obey the powers that be, except when the powers that be interfere with the discharge of our obligation to the kingdom of Christ. The function of the State is simply to protect men in the exercise of their natural rights, and the encouragement thereby, of all good conduct in earthly affairs. All questions of religious duty are above the reach of the State’s control, and should be left to God and his providence, to the Saviour and his people, and to the power of truth and love, acting upon the untrammeled conscience. The State has the right to provide for its own protection and perpetuity. It has the right to remove ignorance by providing for the education of the people; and it has the right to restrain . . . vice, on the ground that ignorance and vice endanger the very existence of the State. But when it goes further than that and attempts to establish or foster any form of religious belief or worship, it steps upon forbidden ground, and violates the very rights of man which it was instituted to protect. The work of the Church is spiritual. Its legitimate authority is spiritual, and only spiritual. The work of the Church,291is to seek by the agency of divine grace and truth to bring men into right spiritual relation with God and one another, to prepare them thereby for happiness and glory in the life to come. The authority of the State is secular. It is not in the remotest degree spiritual. The solitary function of the State is to protect men in the exercise of their natural rights. By natural rights, I mean those pertaining to life, liberty and property. This conception of the relations between Church and State is one for which Baptists have battled and suffered through centuries of despotism and persecution. They were the first to champion the cause of liberty, and in the progress of the fight they have held their places in the front rank of Christ’s army and have been the greatest sufferers. . . . I have said the function of the State is limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. If the duty of the State is to protect human life, it follows that the State has the right to enact laws that will prevent the destruction of human life. . . . Now these are statements which no honest man in his right mind will controvert. And when we admit that the State has these rights and ought to exercise them, we commit ourselves to the principle that it is the right and duty of the State to forbid the sale of intoxicating liquors except for medicinal and mechanical purposes. Political demagogues have attempted to mislead us by saying that the State, in legislating upon the subject, has trespassed on the domain of religion. They know, as well as we do, that it is doing more to shorten human life than any other cause. They know, as well as we do, that when the State prohibits the traffic it is simply fulfilling its obligation to protect the lives of the people. . . . We cannot afford to receive help from the State in building our houses of worship. The principle is wrong. The money which the Church appropriates to this purpose is taken partly from the pockets of people who do not believe in the Christian religion. They are thus compelled by civil power to support an institution in which they have no interest, and for which they have no sympathy. It is not only an injustice to them, but an injury inflicted upon us and our cause. Churches that are supported by the State, rather than by the free offerings of the people, lose their spirituality, cease to be aggressive, and degenerate into the deadness of the coldest formalism. The appointment of chaplains to Congress, to the Army and Navy, and to our State Legislatures, is a custom which strikes at the very first principles of free government. Any man must see that this signifies more than the protection of the Christian religion. It is patronage. These chaplains are appointed by the Government, they are paid by the Government, and they are responsible to the Government for the manner in which they perform their official duties. We are bound to admit that the Government can just as consistently appoint a Mohammedan or a Buddhist to a chaplaincy in the Navy as a Presbyterian or a Baptist. It is a violation of the organic laws of the Republic, and an outrage upon the sacred right of conscience to appoint either. If there is one man more than another who needs the benefit of public worship, it is the average congressman; but it is not the duty of the Government to provide for him this spiritual help. Let members of Congress take money from their own pockets to support the men whom they choose to lead them in the morning devotions, and let the officers and privates of the Army do the same. “Bible Readings for the Home Circle.”
This is the title of a book which we find denounced by the American Sabbath Union, in the “Pearl of Days” column of the Mail and Express, of May 9. The denunciation of this “dangerous” thing was written by Rev. James S. Mott, one of the Vice-Presidents of the American Sabbath Union; indorsed by the Rev. J. H. Knowles, Secretary of the Union, and printed in the “Pearl of Days,” the organ of the Union. Therefore it is strictly official. Speaking of the title of the book, Mr. Mott says:— Such is the winning title of a book which is being pushed throughout our country with all the energy that the book canvasser can exercise. And yet we have never examined a work in which a good title has been employed in a more uncandid way to inculcate pestiferous doctrines. We should be led to expect a volume of devotional articles, and such presentation of divine truth as is currently accepted by evangelical churches. Indeed! Is it true then that nothing can be properly presented in this country as Bible doctrine, or as from the Bible, except it be such a presentation of divine truth as is “currently accepted by the evangelical churches?” In other words, is only that divine truth which is currently accepted by evangelical churches? Are the evangelical churches the divinely appointed interpreters of the Bible in all that it means? Has it come to this that whatever of the Bible or about the Bible is printed and distributed that is not accepted by the evangelical churches, must be denounced as “dangerous” and “pestiferous?” Mr. Mott says:— The preface declares “we let the sacred volume stand as its own witness, massing its testimony on the various subjects presented.” When we had read this blast of the American Sabbath Union, we sent and got a copy of the book, as doubtless most people will do who see it, and the very first place we opened, we found the following on “The New Birth,” page 117:— 1. What is the natural condition of the human family?
“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Rom. 3:23. 2. Who alone will be permitted to see God?
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Matt. 5:8. 3. Can man, by his own exertions alone, change his condition?
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” Jer. 13:23. 4. How, then, can one be brought to God?
“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” 1 Peter 3:18. Turning back just two leaves we find the heading, “Repentance,” under which we have this:— 1. To whom is repentance to be preached?
“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations.” Luke 24:47. 2. Who are called to repentance?
“I come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:32. 3. How is one to know he is a sinner?
“By the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. 3:20. 4. Is this a universal rule?
“We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.” Verse 9. 5. How are sinners convinced of sin?
“But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.” James 2:9. 6. What part does the Holy Spirit act in this work?
“For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come he will reprove the world of sin.” John 16:7, 8, 13, 14. 7. What will be the inquiry of those who are thus convicted?
“Men and brethren what shall we do?” Acts 2:37. 8. What reply should always be returned to this inquiry?
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Verse 38. Under the heading, “The Divinity of Christ,” we find this, page 255:— 1. How does the great Apostle speak of the Lord Jesus?
“God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Tim. 3:16. 2. How does Christ himself speak of his relation to the Father?
“I and my Father are one.” John 10:30. 3. How does he show what he means by being “one with the Father”?
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” John 17:11, 12. 4. Did Christ exist before he was manifested in the flesh?
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” Verse 5. 5. How came he in the world as a Saviour?
“And the angel said unto them, fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” Luke 2:10, 11. Under the heading, “Importance of Prayer,” we find the following, page 324:— 1. What is the Scripture injunction in regard to prayer?
“I would therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath or doubting.” 1 Tim. 2:8.292 2. What is the promise to those who ask and seek for the things they need?
“Everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” Matt. 7:8. 3. How does the Saviour illustrate the willingness of Heaven to grant favors to those who ask?
“If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” Verse 11. Another, under the heading of “The Poor and Our Duty Toward Them,” gives this, page 349:— 1. How long will the Church have poor people in its midst?
“For ye have the poor always with you.” Matt. 26:11. 2. What ought one to do for the poor? and how often?
“For ye have the poor with you alway, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good.” Mark 14:7. 3. What promises are made to those who consider the poor?
“Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the Lord will deliver him in the time of trouble.” The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth; and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies. “The Lord will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: Thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness.” Ps. 41:1–3. 4. When one gives to the poor, how does the Lord consider the act?
“He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.” Prov. 19:17. Each of the readings noticed here is much longer than the parts which we have quoted, but we have printed enough to show how the book is made up. The whole book of six hundred pages is filled with readings in this same order. A question is asked, and then the scripture itself is printed, which answers the question. There are one hundred and sixty-four different readings, which, taken altogether, cover nearly every subject treated of in the Bible, so that anybody who will buy the book and study it through, will have a much better idea of the Bible than he could have by reading the Bible through; because each reading is upon a particular subject, and the different passages of the Scripture that speak upon that subject and make it plain, are printed in that reading, so that when you study the reading you know what the Bible says on that subject. Thus, from an examination of the book, we are prepared to say it is one of the best books for the study of the Bible, that was ever printed. And the American Sabbath Union in condemning it, just as surely condemns the use of the Bible as a popular study. We have been shown by a canvasser for the book, testimonials from secretaries of the Young Men’s Christian Association, pastors of the Baptist Church, the Congregationalist Church, the Methodist Church, the Christian Church, and officers of the Society of Christian Endeavor, all strongly recommending it as an excellent book; and one of the very best helps in preparation for Christian Endeavor exercises, Young Men’s Christian Association work, and church work generally. And we think their recommendations are wise. Yet, in the face of all this, the American Sabbath Union says of the book:
“When it knocks at our door with the pleasant face of, ‘Bible Readings for the Home Circle,’ we must meet that smile with a frown.” When the American Sabbath Union thus shows itself ready to denounce, and meet with a frown, books made up as nearly wholly from the Bible as could possibly be without printing the Bible alone, just because in some things it happens not to suit the American Sabbath Union, how long would it be if they had the power, before the people would be compelled to believe the Bible just as these self-appointed censors do, or else be denounced or frowned upon as this innocent book is by the Union? Yes, indeed! Such is “the winning title” of the book, and by examination we find that the book is as winning as the title. And we hope that every one who sees this, or who saw that which the American Sabbath Union said about the book, will look up a canvasser and get a copy of the book and read it as closely as we have read it. As the American Sabbath Union says that the book “is being pushed throughout our country with all the energy that the book canvasser can exercise,” it ought not to be very hard for individuals to find one of these canvassers and get a copy of the book. "The N. Y. "Mail" and "Express" and "Sunday Excursions."
A WESTERN religious paper has the following criticism of Colonel Shepard's evening paper, which is worth repeating: "The New York Mail and Express, that great champion of the Sunday cause, which deplores so greatly the desecration of Sunday by Sunday trains and excursions, whose editor is President of the American Sabbath Union, makes speeches against Sunday profanation, and publishes in his paper, free of charge, a Sunday department called, 'The Pearl of Days,' in which all Sunday pleasuring is condemned, and all abettors thereto denounced, in its issue of an extra, Saturday evening, August 16, 1890 (which, of course, was intended to be read on Sunday), prints on its first page the following notice:— SUNDAY, BY OCEAN'S SHORE. The Central Railroad of New Jersey and Sandy Hook Route carry you there. With such admirable facilities for visiting the shore on Sunday, as are afforded by the Central Railroad of New Jersey, both by their all-rail route and the Sandy Hook steamers, the traveler in search of rest by the sea can readily gratify the wish, and that, too, at an exceedingly modest outlay of money. The beauties of the seashore in midsummer are manifest, and make such a day's outing a happy one. Sunday boats leave Pier 8, North River, foot of Rector street, at 9:30 A. M., and 1:00 P. M., for Atlantic Highlands, Highland Beach, Seabright, Long Branch, etc. Sunday trains leave ferry, foot of Liberty street, at 4:00 and 9:00 A. M., and 4:00 P. M.—Adv." "We presume the 'adv.' means advertisement. Now, what did the New York Mail and Express publish this for? Was it for the good of the Sunday cause, or for the money there is in it? There can be but one answer. It will publish on one page for money what on another page it denounces as immoral and a sin against God. Where is the principle? How much dependence can be put on such editors? and how deep is their religion? Perhaps Colonel Shepard has not read far enough in his Bible yet to get to the text which says that 'he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.' 2 John, 11. Mr. Knowles, who conducts the 'Pearl of Days' department, might now with propriety give the Mail and Express a scathing rebuke, and the editor of the paper himself tell what a wicked thing it is." Religion and the Schools.
By Howard Crosby
The United States became a Nation on the fundamental principle of religious liberty. Other nations had reached the point of religious toleration, but none had adopted a system of religious liberty. Toleration implies a State religion. Liberty implies no State religion. Religion is left to the individual and his conscience. Accordingly no special form of religion can be in any way fostered by governmental aid. The least patronage of a religious sect is a violation of religious liberty. Religions must grow from their own vitality and not from State culture. This is not only the sole condition of religious liberty, but it is the most favorable condition of religion itself. State interference must always mar religion, however much it may give it the appearance of prosperity. State interference brings in the discordant element of politics, detrimental to all religion. It is from these premises we insist that religion must never be taught in our public schools. Any form of religious teaching must have a sectarian character as against other forms; and, to that degree, such teaching in our public schools would be a violation of our national principle of religious liberty. Because a devout Christian would like to have all American children instructed in the evangelical doctrine, he has no more right to have it taught in the public schools than a devout Jew, in his ardent desire to have all American children instructed in Judaism, has to have the Talmud taught in the public schools. In either case, religious liberty is violated. The piety that would force such instruction is of the same sort that burned Giordano Bruno. The school should have as its one object293the preparation of the child to form an intelligent member of the State. For this he must know how to read and write and compute numbers, and must become acquainted with the history and institutions of his country. There the public school has exhausted its function. Religion should be taught at home and in the church. There it can be rendered specific and detailed. The important doctrines may there be carefully inculcated, and a strong religion imparted, when the public school at best could furnish only a very weak religion. The cry of irreligious schools under this American system is just as senseless as would be the cry of irreligious reading-rooms or irreligious eating-houses, because no religion was apparent in them. The growth of religion in our country is due to its religious liberty. Injure that religious liberty, and you check that growth. And not only do you check the growth of religion, but you engender controversies that infiltrate our politics and prepare the way for the overthrow of all liberties. Religious contests form the fertile soil of tyrannies, and it is for us Americans to avoid carefully the beginnings of a false system that would intensify religious hatreds and strife. While the Government is neutral, all religions can grow according to their own vitality, and the truth will eventually triumph peacefully and satisfactorily to all. —Howard Crosby, D.D., LL.D., in Independent. The Eight-Hour Movement and Sunday.
IN discussing the eight-hour movement and the success which is attending it, the Observer, of this city, says:— This labor day of eight hours has an important bearing on the interests and obligations of the holy Sabbath. Though it gives more time for rest and recreation during the week, it does not lessen the desirability and necessity of one day of complete rest from ordinary labor. Eight hours a day of thorough work during six successive days, will make one day of entire repose from physical and mental toil a genuine relief and benefit. But eight full hours of freedom in every day of the week completely destroys the argument for making Sunday a mere holiday. It is a national disaster for a people to become so frivolous and pleasure-loving, that they cannot devote one day in seven to actual rest and serious occupation. When Sunday is used by one-half the population in labor that may provide the other half with amusements, this country will be ready to rank in moral, and spiritual force, with a South American republic. Eight hours a day for labor removes every shadow of an excuse for popular attacks on the Sabbath on the ground that labor has no other time for recreation. That labor which is confined to eight hours has more opportunity for amusement of every kind, than other large divisions of humanity. This shows the true animus of the whole Sunday movement. It is true that the leaders in the present national Sunday crusade, are professedly working for a civil Sunday, a day in which the poor working man may rest; but it is none the less true that their inspiration is found in the fact that they have a religious regard for the day, and are determined that others shall at least act as though they also regard it as sacred. They are simply seeking governmental recognition of a religious institution. 2. Preserve the Constitution.
By H. E. Phelps
At the present time, when some are lamenting the absence of the name of God in our national Constitution, and claiming that our Government is founded upon atheistical principles, and hence, a necessity for a change of that noble document, it certainly will not be lost time to study it a little more closely. Although it must be admitted that “our Government is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion,” I should not be surprised if, upon examination, we found the gospel and our Government were founded upon the same principles, both designed, in the highest sense, to make men free. Compare for a moment, the Golden Rule and the Declaration of Independence, the one uttered by Him who “spake as never man spake,” the other by those who were familiar with the intolerance of the Old World, and who were determined to found a Government that would make free men of all its subjects. We admire the one, because if carried out in life, it would place every person upon a perfect equality with his fellow man. We love the other, because, under its principles, we have grown to be the greatest Nation in the world, and our land, “the home of the free.” The same spirit of equality and justice is breathed in both these documents. The words of the first are, “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” In the other we read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In sentiment, these are the same. No matter what position we occupy in life, high or low, rich or poor, black or white, these are rights given of the Creator, and can not in justice be taken away, or transferred. Again, every man is sovereign in his own house, for the Constitution says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” And if this were carried out, it would be the principle of the Golden Rule. And in all civil matters, securing justice to all, peace among neighbors, the right to secure and hold property, and in everything adopted and framed into the Constitution, for the common defense and general welfare of the people, we see over and over again the principle of doing to others as we would wish to be done by. And in religious matters, a barrier of defense is built, that is imperceptible, if left as framed by our fathers. We read: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for office of public trust under the United States.” Again, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Thus forever placing all upon an equality in matters of conscience, leaving every person free to make choice of whom or what to worship; how and when, and where, and at the same time not to infringe upon the sacred rights of his fellow man. And here again is the same principle of placing ourselves in the other man's shoes, and then doing as we would be done by. These principles are worthy of our love, of our highest admiration. They are in perfect harmony with the principles of the gospel, the principles of Christianity. Thus we find the objects of the gospel, and of the Constitution, each in its place, perfectly agree, namely, to make men free. All honor to these principles, all honor to those broad-minded men, the fathers of our Republic. All honor to our national Constitution, and let us watch with a jealous eye, every suggestion to change that glorious document. H. E. Phelps, in Journal, Brainerd, Minn. The late German Catholic Congress, held at Coblenz, adopted resolutions demanding “the re-establishment in Germany of all the Catholic orders, including the Jesuits, and the restoration of the Pope’s temporal power.” “These demands,” says the Catholic Review, “are significant in Germany to the party suffering, because of their inherent justice to the party governing, because of the fact that six thousand Germans met in congress to make them.” Yes, they are significant, but not for the reasons given by the Review; they are significant because in every country Roman Catholics are exerting a greater influence than ever before in the present century; and the end is not yet. Of the proposed Catholic Congress to be held in Chicago in 1889, the Review says: Let us get 10,000 representative Catholics together in Chicago, in 1889, and if they will have the courage of their German co-religionists, the courage to demand their rights, and the rights of the Holy Father, well and good. If they will not, then let us bow our heads before the nobler, greater, braver Germans. They will not lack the courage,” but it is to be feared that those who stand at the head of our Government will lack the courage to resist as they should the encroachments of Rome in this country; and not only so, but already evidences are not lacking, as witnessed by the congressional appropriations to Catholic schools, to show that the demands of Rome are not less potent in this country than in some of the nations of the Old World.