The American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 30
THE *Loyal American* says that, “THE AMERICAN SENTINEL questions the right of thPage 1
THE Loyal American says that, “THE AMERICAN SENTINEL questions the right of the State to prescribe what language shall be taught in the State schools,” and asks us to explain why. The Loyal American ought to read THE SENTINEL more carefully. THE SENTINEL never did, and never will, question the right of the State to prescribe what language shall be taught in the State school. All that THE SENTINEL has done in this line is to question the right of the State to prescribe what language or any thing else shall be taught in church schools. For any church to undertake to prescribe what should be taught in State schools, everybody knows would be a union of Church and State; and for any State to undertake to prescribe what shall be taught in any church school is a union of State and Church. And the difference between the evils of a union of State and Church and a union of Church and State is too slight to be defined. Therefore, THE AMERICAN SENTINEL protests just as much against a union of State and Church as anybody else does against a union of Church and State, and we wish the Loyal American would do so too. What Is Treason?
By A. T. J.
WHEN it is said that the State has no right to interfere with the private school, or to dictate what shall or shall not be taught there, certain persons who make a boast of their Americanism and wear it for a badge, exclaim, and by the exclamation betray their ignorance of American principles, “Suppose the private school should teach treason!" It would be well, and it is strictly in order, for such persons to learn that there is no such thing in this country as teaching treason. Treason cannot be taught here. American principles know no such thing as the teaching of treason. The United States Constitution says:— Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
This same provision is in the Constitution of all the States. The words “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort” plainly mean adhering to those who are levying war, or who are engaged in it. As treason therefore consists “only in levying war,” or adhering to those who are doing so, it is plain that treason cannot be taught; it can only be acted, and that in the waging of actual war. This is confirmed by other points, one of which is the declaration that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. So far as the Government is concerned, freedom of speech and the press is absolute. The theory of this Government is that thinking, discussion, and teaching, shall be absolutely free, that there shall be no restriction upon ideas, even though an idea should gain the assent of a majority of the people to the extent of changing the form of government itself. This is the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, which says:— We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to secure their safety and happiness.
From this it is plain that if the idea of a monarchical instead of a republican form of government were conceived by a single man to be the better form of government, he has the right freely to publish and to speak, and to teach that idea; and if by such means he can cause that idea to grow until it absorbs the majority of the people, they might actually change the form of government without committing treason. Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, it is one of the rights of the people to establish such form of government as suits them best; and if a sufficiently large majority of people could be gained to change the form of government by ballot or by any other peaceable means, there would be in it no treason. Upon American principles, ideas are free, and it is expected that whatever idea prevails, that is the idea that the people want to see prevail. In all this there is no shadow of a suggestion or an admission that the teaching234in the private schools would be treason, even if treason could be taught. It is simply to call the attention of our boastful “Americans” to the fact that when they exclaim against the danger of somebody’s “teaching treason” in this country, they are testifying against themselves that they have not yet gotten rid of the principles of despotism in government; and that if they intend to be Americans indeed, they need to know what American principles are, and to speak accordingly. The Order of United American Mechanics is petitioning Congress largely, for “an amendment to the Constitution, which shall prevent the States from enacting laws for the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is an evidence that the practical people of the United States are waking up to the dangers and exigencies of the times. THERE are at present, four bills before Congress, having in view the closing of saloons on Sunday in the District of Columbia. One has passed the Senate and gone to the House, two have been introduced in the House, and still another has just been introduced in the Senate. The entire Sunday movement seems, at this time, to be concentrated upon the closing of the saloon on Sunday, totally regardless of the mantle of legal charity which it thus throws over the liquor traffic for the remaining six days of the week. Is It Blindness?
By A. T. J.
THE Presbyterian Synod of New York sent up to the General Assembly as an overture, its views on the subject of religion and public education, upon which the Committee on Bills and Overtures made the following report, which was unanimously adopted:— A paper reciting the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin, affirming the Bible to be a sectarian book, and its use in the public schools to be unconstitutional, and asking for a deliverance of the General Assembly, having been received, your committee recommends that this Assembly reaffirm the action of the Assembly of 1870. [See Digest, pages 278–80.] This action declares an unalterable devotion to the public school system as an agency next to the Church of God in laying a foundation of intelligence, virtue, and freedom in the United States. Regarding the Bible as the Magna Charta of our best moral and religious influences, we would consider its expulsion from our public schools as a deplorable and suicidal act, and do hereby urge upon our members to co-operate with Christian people in maintaining the place of this Book of God as an educating force among the youth of our land. The committee, therefore, moves the adoption of the following resolutions by the Assembly. WHEREAS, A recent decision of the Supreme Court of one of our States has affirmed the Bible to be a sectarian book and its use in the public schools to be unconstitutional; and WHEREAS, We see in this decision no mere local matter, such as affects simply the people of that State, but the culmination of an effort being made with relentless pertinacity by a foreign hierarchy to overthrow the system of public schools throughout the land; therefore Resolved, That we affirm the importance of our public schools to the welfare of our people; that with intellectual cultivation must go moral training, or the schools may prove a curse rather than a blessing; but this moral training must be based on religion, otherwise its sanction will not be strong enough to grasp the conscience of the people, or its utterances obligatory enough to shape their character; that as the Bible is the source of the highest moral teaching, we regard its exclusion from our public schools as a menace to national welfare, and we urge the members of our church to so arouse public thought on this subject, from the pulpit, the press, and ecclesiastical assemblages, that this Book shall be restored to its true place in our system of education. As the same General Assembly indorsed the movement for the revision of the Confession of their faith, it will be in order now for them to revise that part of the Confession which denies the right of the State to have anything to do with administering the word of God. Yet it is probable that instead of doing so they will keep it there just as it is, and still go on boasting loudly of the Presbyterian doctrines, of the separation between Church and State, of religious liberty, and the rights of conscience. Consistency, although it may be in the wrong, is better than the absurd self-contradiction, in which the Presbyterian General Assembly, and the New York Conference of Methodist Episcopal Churches have involved themselves on this question. If they would argue at once for a union of Church and State they might be considered honest, at least, even though they were wrong; but when in one sentence they declare strongly for an absolute separation of Church and State, and then in the very next sentence declare just as strongly for the teaching of the Christian religion by the State, it is hard to understand how they can be honest, without charging them with being ignorant, whether they be right or wrong. ONE of the latest attempts to show that there exists a purely civil basis for Sunday laws, and that so far as Sunday laws exist in this country, they exist upon a civil basis, is an article in the May New Englander, by Dr. William Atterbury of this city. On this point, Dr. Atterbury says:— The distinction was made between the Sabbath as an institution of religion, and the observance of Sunday as a civil institution. This distinction has been carefully preserved by legislatures and courts. Sunday laws are now upon the statute books of every State but California. In general, these laws forbid common labor and traffic, except in cases of necessity or mercy; public or noisy amusements, and whatever is likely to disturb the quiet and order of the day. They make Sunday a non-legal day; courts may not sit, nor legal processes be served, except in specified cases. It will be seen that they do not enforce or prohibit any observance of religion. They leave each man free to do or to omit doing on Sunday what he chooses, within restrictions which are deemed necessary to the public peace, order, and general welfare. There is no interference with the liberty of conscience. Neither the religious nor the irreligious character of the acts forbidden is assumed. Let us examine this matter a little and see how “carefully” legislatures and courts have preserved this “distinction.” In the case of Bramhall vs. Van Campen, (8 Minnesota Reports, 13), Judge Flandrau, of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, gave the opinion that “the Sabbath laws of that State can have no other object than the enforcement of the fourth of God’s commandments.” In the Supreme Court of Texas, Judge Caldwell held that “the object of the Legislature was to forbid all secular employments on the Sabbath, not excepted in the act. The disregard of the Sabbath, the refusal to recognize it as a day sanctified to holy purposes, constitutes the offense.” (Elsner vs. the State, 30 Texas Reports, 524.) In deciding one of these Sunday cases the Supreme Court of Alabama also said: “We do not think the design of the Legislature in the passage of the act can be doubted. It was evidently to promote morality and advance the interests of religion, by prohibiting all persons from engaging in their common and ordinary vocations.” (O’Donnel vs. Sweeney, 5 Alabama Reports, 467. See also Wright vs. Geer, 1 Root, 474; Fox vs. Able, 2 Connecticut Reports, 548; George vs. George, 47 New Hampshire Reports, 27.) It is scarcely necessary to add anything to this testimony of the courts of these States; the Judges who delivered these opinions probably knew more about the intent of the law-makers than does Dr. Atterbury. It would seem, however, that it ought not to require Supreme Court decisions to convince anyone that the religious character of the day is the only real basis of Sunday laws; this is certainly the case, and the Judges whose opinions have been given, have simply recognized the fact without seeking to change it in the least. Again, Dr. Atterbury says: “In general these laws [the Sunday laws of the several States] forbid common labor and business,” etc.; that is true, but the term generally used is not “common labor or business,” but “secular labor or business.” This is the term used both in the Blair Sunday-rest Bill and in the Breckinridge Bill, and in this they only follow the language of the statutes of most of the States. Webster defines “secular” as “Pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to235things not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly.” The contrast implied by the use of this word cannot be ignored. According to the definition quoted above, the word “secular” is opposed to religious and spiritual; and we are surprised that anyone should say that in such laws “neither the religious nor the irreligious character of the acts forbidden is assumed.” It is impossible to forbid “secular” labor or business without assuming the religious character of the acts permitted, or rather the religious character of the acts to which the day is to be devoted. Substituting the definition for the word “secular,” we have this paraphrase of that portion of the Blair Bill which prohibits secular work or business on Sunday: “No person, or the agent, or servant, or employe, of any person or corporation, shall perform on Sunday, or authorize to be performed, any work, labor, or business pertaining to this world, or to things not spiritual or holy, works of necessity and mercy excepted.” Now the bill means just the same with the word “secular” in it that it does with the definition of the word, and it means no more than do the Sunday laws of very many of the States. The fact is, that Sunday laws are made because of the regard that people have for the day as a religious institution, and the so-called civil basis for it is a recent discovery, sought out for the purpose of meeting the arguments against such legislation. C. P. B. THE latest utterance of the chief worker in behalf of Sunday legislation is the following:— Laws setting apart a weekly “independence day” are no more inconsistent with liberty and much more essential to it, than the law of the annual Independence-day. The man who expects that people are going to accept such a feeble comparison as that as sound argument for Sunday legislation, pays a poor compliment to their intelligence. There is no more likeness between the Sunday observance that is contemplated by the proposed laws and the observance of the Fourth of July, than there is between a Presbyterian synod and a college baseball nine. When such a plea as that is made for Sunday laws, all you have to do is to ask if under the proposed Sunday laws it is designed to give people the same freedom of action that they have on the Fourth of July. Are we to believe that all the so-called American Sabbath Union is working for is for a law granting the people full liberty to take “a day off” every Sunday, to go on a picnic, let off fire-crackers, lounge around, and do as they please generally? Some less gauzy plea will have to be invented.—Signs of the Times. Centralization.
By W. H. M.
THE Blair Educational Bill, “to aid in the establishment and temporary support of common schools,” and which was defeated in the Senate, has been introduced in the House by Mr. Cheatham, and was called up in a meeting of the House Education Committee on June 27, when, seven Republican members being present, all voted to report the bill. It has since been reported favorably to the House, by the chairman of the Committee. July 12, Mr. McComas from the House Education Committee reported favorably the bill, which has already passed the Senate (S. 3714) to apply a portion of the proceeds of the public lands to the more complete endowment and support of the colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanical arts. This last bill appropriates the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, with an annual increase of one thousand dollars for ten years, and an annual sum thereafter of twenty-five thousand dollars to be paid to each State and Territory, to aid in the endowment and maintenance of agricultural colleges. The sums annually appropriated are directed, by the provisions of the bill, to be paid to the treasurers of the respective colleges, and “such treasurers shall be required to report to the Secretary of Agriculture, and to the Secretary of the Interior, on or before the first day of September of each year, a detailed statement of the amount so received and of its disbursement;” also “an annual report by the president of each of said colleges shall be made to the Secretary of Agriculture, as well as to the Secretary of the Interior, regarding the condition and progress of each college, including statistical information in relation to its receipts and expenditures, its library, the number of its students and professors, etc.” The Secretary of the Interior is charged with the proper administration of the law. This bill had its origin and growth in the same atmosphere which produced the Blair Educational Bill, and the Blair Educational Amendment, and was accompanied by a printed report from Senator Blair. Some of the more objectionable features of the measure, as it was first attempted to be passed, were eliminated, but enough remains to show the ear marks of a determined effort to centralize educational control in the general Government. Senators Morgan, Reagan, Hawley, and Plumb opposed most earnestly the clauses which placed these State institutions under the supervision of United States authority; and to them it is due that Congress did not commit itself to the passage of a bill which in express terms assumed the right of the central Government to exercise a supervision over State institutions of learning. Senator Morgan said:— It seems to me, Mr. President, that the Senator from Vermont is lending himself to a scheme here for the purpose of introducing into the act of 1862 certain new features which imply that the Congress of the United States shall take the control of education in the States where these colleges are situated, and that the schools shall be regulated by a law passed here and by administrative measures enacted here. . . If any one thing has ever occurred in the history of the legislation of the United States to prove that the States are the proper guardians of public education, the history of the act of 1862 establishing the agricultural colleges is the best proof that could be adduced. At a proper time, I shall ask these gentlemen in this body, who have committed themselves against the propositions of the interference of Congress in the administration of public schools in the States, to strike out of this bill what is proposed to be inserted here and which is entirely unnecessary. Senator Reagan followed Senator Morgan, saying:— Before I proceed with the criticisms I desire to make upon the bill, I will say that it seems to me the purpose of the bill is to fix upon our legislation the principle that Congress is to go into the States, take charge of educational institutions, and regulate what is to be done with them. That was a principal argument made against an educational bill which has been urged with great ability and persistency here. It seems to me now, if we consent to adopt this bill in the form in which it is presented by the committee, it takes away all arguments in the future that Congress has no right to control the schools of the State. I wish to add here that it seems to be upon the theory of a great many leading men in New England, almost a New England idea, that the Constitution of the United States is to be overthrown by the enlargement of the powers of the Federal Government, and by the abridgment of the powers of the States, and this is one of the means of doing it. This is a serious indictment, and, most unfortunately, it is a true bill. The Sunday Paper Again.
By Editor
PITTSFIELD, Massachusetts, is a city of fifteen or sixteen thousand inhabitants, and has of course several papers. One of these, the Call, is published on Sunday. We are not informed that its publishers make any profession of religion, but one of its editors is a church member. At a recent meeting of the official board of the church to which he belongs, it was voted that one of the brethren be requested to see the editor and expostulate with him in reference to his publishing the Call on Sunday, and to request him either to change the date of publication or withdraw from the church. To this the editor, made reply in the next issue of his paper as follows:— The Call has been published in this city for the past eighteen months. The editors of the paper (not the publisher, for its editors have no ownership in the property, and are simply employes,) have tried to maintain the standard they first set up when a Sunday paper was thought of, and that was to publish a clean paper. . . . We make no boast, but we claim that no paper in Berkshire County makes a greater effort to keep its columns clean and pure than our own. Quack medicines of the “Penny-royal Pills” order, “Errors of Youth,” or quack doctors have no place in the Call. Many of the religious journals cannot say so much. Not because they are not offered us, but because we will not take them. We deal in no sensations and we print as much church news as any paper in Berkshire. The Call is printed late Saturday nights, and the work of its getting out is done largely on Saturday. The Monday paper which the good brother who brought up the resolution reads so gladly, is all made on Sunday. This same brother we refer to has no scruples about hitching up his horse of a Sunday afternoon and riding over the highways of Berkshire, and in which we are of the opinion that he does no harm; excepting as he draws the line of Sunday observance. The date of publication of the Call will not be changed. We find that the good people of this city and county patronize us well; and we, on the other hand, attempt to give them a readable and clean journal for their education, and we hope, their profit. We have the highest respect for religious things, and advocate good order, morals and all that makes men and a community better. The Call is willing to compare records with the over-zealous brother who wants to excommunicate one of the editors of this paper. Its sole harm lies in the fact that it is read on Sunday. The Call has no disposition to attack the church, and whether excommunicated or not, we shall hold in the highest love and heartfelt devotion the church to which we have always been proud to know we belonged, whether we have always walked in its ways faultlessly or not. We shall not withdraw. The board has the right to expel, and no one questions that, after a hearing and proper charges are preferred. . . . The editors of the Call await the action of the board, as expressed in their resolution, with interest. The fight about Sunday papers may as well be met here as anywhere. As we said before, for the people of our faith, for the church of our choice, and for the esteemed pastor of that flock, we have now and always shall maintain the highest regard and affection.236 We have italicized one sentence in this straightforward statement of the matter of difference between the editor and the church, because it gives in a few words the gist of the whole matter. The opposition to Sunday papers is not on account of the work done upon them on Sunday, but because they are read on Sunday, and the objection to this reading is, that it keeps people away from church. Of course the church has a right to overcome this difficulty if it can, by proper means, that is by church discipline and by moral suasion, but it has no right to ask the State to interfere and forbid the publication of Sunday papers. Evils of Religious Domination.
In the course of his remarks in the Senate, June 24, while that portion of the Diplomatic and Consular Appropriation Bill was under discussion, which has relation to the recommendations of the International American Conference, Senator Morgan, of Alabama, said:— The South American States under the Spanish regime had one difficulty to encounter that we never really were confronted with, which has been more potent, more influential, upon the destinies of those States than the negro question has been in the United States, or any other question which we have had to contend with, not excepting our war with Great Britain; and this is the influence of an established religion. . . . It has taken the better part of the lives of their respective Governments, and an enormous outlay of money, and the shedding of vast quantities of human blood, to free them from the mistake which we escaped through our good sense in discarding the domination of any religious sect or power or church in our Government, and in adopting that wonderful scheme, promoted by Mr. Jefferson, of the divorce of the Church and the State. These peoples, one by one, nation by nation, have struggled out of the embrace of “this body of death,” for this is what it was to them, politically considered, and as fast as they have broken away from it (and most conspicuously in the case of Mexico) they have risen at once to order and progress and deliverance from embarrassment, and they have established themselves with wonderful rapidity in power, and in dignity, and in influence amongst the nations of the earth. Such utterances as these should be recommended to the consideration of the judiciary of Tennessee, where it has just been decided, in Justice, Circuit, and Supreme Courts, that a conscientious Christian man who observes the Sabbath of the fourth commandment (the seventh day), might properly be indicted as a common nuisance, because he plowed corn on Sunday in sight of some half dozen persons, part of whom were avowed spies on his actions with the intent to prosecute him because of their religious intolerance. “Quite Cautious,” Indeed.
THE following ringing article is from the Signs of the Times, a Seventh-day Adventist paper, published in Oakland, California:— In the Christian Statesman of May 15, “N. R. J.,” writing from this city, gives the object of the “not very positive but quite cautious,” Sunday-law plank in the California Prohibition Party’s platform. We quote from his letter as follows:— It will be noticed that the wording of the resolution is not very positive but quite cautious. It was evidently framed with the intention and expectation of securing the approbation and votes of the Seventh-day Adventists, who are not only a temperate people, but quite numerous in the State. If that was the object of the plank, it will certainly fail of its purpose in the main. Seventh-day Adventists are an ultra-temperance body, but they know too well the history of religious legislation in the past, and the “sure word of prophecy” regarding its future, to become in any sense, or to any degree, a party to open the door for its devastating work in this country. When this certain blot upon our civil and religious liberty does come, it must come at the bidding of those who are too blind to see, and too credulous to suspect, the poison sting that lies secreted by its “civil” smile. He further says, by way of emphasizing the cautious character of the resolution, that “it ignores the Sabbath as a divine institution.” Why, we ask, should it not be ignored as a divine institution, if a “civil” Sabbath is all that is to be asked, as heretofore represented by “N. R. J.” himself, and his co-agitators? Again, he complains that “it ignores the duty of the State to forbid work because the divine law forbids it.” We ask, What has the divine law to do with a “civil sabbath”? The divine law does not recognize any such institution as a “civil sabbath.” That law provides for a religious Sabbath, the keeping of a day holy, and designates what day,—the seventh day,—the day before the first day of the week. See Ex. 20: 8–11; Mark 16: 1, 2; Luke 23:56 and 24:1. Why, then, should the State forbid work on a “civil sabbath” on the authority of the divine law? Another complaint is, “it gives no preference to the Christian Sabbath, or, indeed, any day, but favors only one day in seven as a rest-day.” Why should they give preference to the “Christian Sabbath,” if only a “civil sabbath” is desired? What difference does it make what day is set apart for “civil” purposes? But “N. R. J.” seems to be afraid that the “civil sabbath,” for which he has so earnestly pleaded in Oakland and other places, will be all his party will get, if anything; and there is cause for suspicion that some ulterior design lurks behind this specious plea of a “civil sabbath” for the physical necessities of the tired workingman,—that “the saloonist would have an opportunity to go to church, or to the picnic, or to rest at home.” Yet he says “for a political party convention this is better than nothing.” With all the deceptive caution, however, designed to catch the Seventh-day Adventist vote, “N. R. J.” is doubtful, and properly so, that the game will win. He rather despairingly admits that “they are not likely to vote with any party that favors civil legislation in favor of even a ‘civil sabbath’ if this be the first day of the week.” He knows very well that Seventh-day Adventists would not vote for civil legislation in favor of any kind of a Sabbath, civil or religious. But why did he add that last clause, “if this be the first day of the week”? The insinuation is that for some other day they would favor it; that they are actuated solely by a wicked disregard of Sunday. And this is in harmony with the endeavor of the national Sunday-law advocates, who strive to create the impression that only seventh-day keepers would be affected by the law. Seventh-day Adventists are not only opposed to civil legislation in favor of any kind of a Sabbath, but they are opposed to civil legislation for a Sabbath on any day of the week. To enforce by civil law a so-called “civil sabbath,” or that other imaginary absurdity, an American Sabbath, is subversive of the liberties guaranteed by the Federal Constitution; and it is unwarranted by the word of God. And to presume to add civil law to the commandment237of God for the enforcement of his Sabbath, is presuming to add wisdom and strength to the decree of the Almighty. “Who hath required this at your hand?” Not all the Sunday-law preachers, nor all the political conventions in Christendom, can frame a Sunday-law resolution so cautiously that Seventh-day Adventists cannot see through to the end of the scheme. Human Sabbath laws are evil, and only evil, no matter upon what pretext they are framed. Who Will Run the Machine?
By Roswell F. Cottrell
At one of the National Reform Conventions, a speaker describing the “typical American office seeker,” said, “he may for a time pull back on the hind axle, and scotch the wheels of National Reform; but when he sees that the car is going on to success, he will jump aboard and claim a front seat.” So it seemed that the speaker hoped to have the help of the “typical office seeker” in carrying out the scheme which they advocate. And who will prevent him from taking a front seat? He can profess the Christian religion as loudly as any of them. And the majority may decide to give him a front seat. Catholics and Protestants will help to get the National Reform machine running; but who will run it? Neither can claim the exclusive right; therefore the “typical American office seeker” will stand as good a chance as anybody. These religious fanatics know not what they do. They may fancy that they will get the control of the Government and run it as they please; but they cannot tell what will be the result of converting our free Government into an engine of religious oppression, as it certainly will be whenever the Nation professes religion, as they desire. But they will not take warning; they are determined to try their insane project. And some of them already have the spirit of persecution. It is often manifest that they have “blood in their eye.” But many are deluded, and may see their error only when it is too late. THE clergy seem to be entering into politics at this period more than ever before in our history. They are not content with giving moral and religious instruction, leaving the laity to apply it in practical affairs according to their own consciences. Instead of this the clergy are taking the part of active political leaders with specific political designs. The Reformed Presbyterian ministers are circulating petitions to Congress asking that God shall be formally recognized in the Constitution as the only Supreme Ruler; and they are refusing to vote until their request is granted. Methodists and Presbyterians in their general convocations demand that religion shall be made a part of the public school education, and a society, made up of ministers chiefly, has been organized to combat the supposed influence of the Church of Rome upon school legislation. They cry out that the schools must be protected against clerical influence, and yet at the same time they protest that the secularization of the schools must not continue. They seem to be desirous of bringing the religious issue into politics with the clergy as the natural and inevitable leaders. A large number of ministers of various denominations have also been preaching sermons after an organized plan, declaring that what they call civil-service reform is a religious obligation. The Rev. Dr. Parkhurst, of the Presbyterians, Dr. Elmendorf, of the Dutch Reformed, and Mr. Heber Newton, of the Episcopalians, have entered into the municipal campaign with great heat, contending that their flocks must make the task of changing the present municipal officers a profound religious duty. To that end, and with the assistance of Bishop Potter, the ministers of this mind are about to organize a clerical party in municipal politics; and the churches will probably be transformed into halls for generating enthusiasm in behalf of the movement. The town will ring with political sermons if this project works, and the test of orthodoxy and Christian principle may be the support of the clerical ticket. This, of course, is likely to make discord in the churches, for nearly all the leaders of the opposition are church members, and it is improbable that they will change their political course at the dictation of their pastors. For instance, in Dr. Parkhurst’s Madison Square Church, is Collector Erhardt, who wants a straight Republican ticket under any circumstances; and yet, according to the view of the clerical party, the advocacy of such a ticket is downright sin. They want the field unobstructed for their fight with Tammany. Boss Platt is also among the parishioners, and he may make up his mind that it is bad politics to run a clerical ticket. Another of Dr. Parkhurst’s parishioners is Mayor Smith Ely, faithful in his attention to his religious duties, and yet so sagacious that he may regard the project of the clergy as impracticable. Hence the plan of bringing the clergy and the churches into politics is sure to lead to much embarrassment, and it may provoke dissensions which will be long in healing; for no church would be unanimous in its views of political duty and expediency. Some of the congregation would be on the side of the clerical party, and some would be supporting the regular Democratic or Republican nominations. Yet the pastor would be electioneering for the clerical ticket with might and main, and preaching that it was a Christian duty to vote for it and, inferentially, a sin against God to vote any other way. When the Church enters the political arena, the great majority of the people will feel that their duty as citizens requires them to administer to it a sharp rebuke as a warning against any repetition of the experiment. In this Republic, Church and State must be separated absolutely, and always.—The Sun. THE Colorado Catholic of June 21, gives editorial expression to a few points which are worthy of consideration by the Sunday Union, and National Reform Association. The Catholic says:— The ranting and raving of certain ministers of Denver anent Sunday observance is becoming simply disgusting. Last Sunday a certain minister went about from church to church airing himself on the question. What right had he to say to any man that he must deprive himself of any amusement on Sunday? Did Jesus Christ, in whom he professes to believe, appoint Sunday as a day of rest? No, he did not. Why then should these ministers assume to themselves the right to tell any man what he must do on Sunday? . . . Yes, the world concedes that man needs a day of rest. What right have you to say it shall be Sunday? . . . Sunday is to be observed by religious worship and prayer, not because of any State law, but because God has commanded it. He has commanded it through his church, therefore it is to be observed in the manner indicated by that church. Now, the church which has appointed Sunday as a day of rest—the day Mr. Crafts follows—never demanded the puritanical and nonsensical observance required by him. . . . But we say to you, ministers of Denver, you have no right to demand any religious observance of Sunday unless you find it in your rule of faith—the Bible—which you may search till the day of doom for a single text to sustain your position. Do not resort to civil process for support, for our Constitution guarantees us religious liberty, and you have no right to say to any man that he must be sanctimonious and hypocritically pious instead of light hearted and merry, which the Catholic Church bids all her children to be. There is nothing uncertain or indefinite about these statements. Do the Sunday-law advocates acknowledge their truth or deny them? If they deny, upon what authority do they base their denial?