[We reprint the following article, written by Jas. T. Ringgold, member of the Baltimore Bar and author of “The Law of Sunday,” by permission of the publishers of the American Law Register and Review, of Philadelphia, a magazine which, under its new and able management, is rapidly coming to the front among the leading periodicals of the country. The Register and Review now wisely deals with many questions of broad and general interest, besides paying due attention to topics of technical value to the legal profession.]
The constitutionality and the construction of “Sunday laws” have been considered by the courts of this country in nearly one thousand cases. So far as the mere weight of authority can settle anything, it is settled that such laws are valid under the Federal Constitution, and under the constitution of every State in which their validity has been contested.
There are traces of a union of Church and State elsewhere in the body of American law (as in statutes against blasphemy, qualifications required of witnesses, etc.), but Sunday laws are by far the most conspicuous portion of this inheritance of ours from the English form of government.
To say that Sunday laws represent a union of Church and State, and that the weight of authority sustains such laws in the United States, may sound to some like an impeachment of our judiciary, because the absolute separation of the two is commonly regarded as an axiom of American politics. Yet both propositions are demonstrable.
The second, of course, is established by a mere counting of the cases. The reading of them is enough to establish the first.† Occasionally an objection is made to Sunday laws as interfering with the rights of property, etc. But in every case their constitutionality has been assailed, and in most cases it has been exclusively assailed on the ground that they are infringements of religious liberty. And not one of the judges who have sustained them on other than religious grounds has ever ventured the assertion that they are passed, or that their enforcement is asked for, on any other ground than these. And a statute which is passed or the enforcement of which is asked for on religious grounds, represents a union of Church and State, pro tanto, no matter what other grounds the courts may allege for its enforcement.
It is difficult to formulate a general statement in American constitutional law, outside of the Federal system, because the language of the State constitutions differs widely, and the language of the statutes on any particular subject is equally at variance. The force of this proposition is lessened, but it is by no means nullified, by the interesting fact discovered and noted by Mr. Stimson (see the preface to his invaluable “American Statute Law”), that there are in the Union “streams of legislation,” that is to say, groups of States (of which he finds three, with some anomalies) whose legislation follows a uniform line, different from that followed by States of another group.
One of Mr. Stimson’s “streams of legislation” is followed by twenty-nine States, whose constitutions declare in substance that no “preference” shall be given by law to one religious sect over another. If we admit that there is a like intent inspiring the somewhat diversified phraseology of the provisions for “religious equality,” etc., in States outside of this stream—as we must admit, unless we are prepared to admit that a union of Church and State may be effected in such States—then we may frame this general statement regarding Sunday laws, as the result of the decisions to date: It is concluded that they would be invalid in any State, if they gave a “preference” to one religion over another, and it is denied that they give any such preference.
The constitutionality of a statute may be regarded from two standpoints—that of its design, and that of its effect. “Design” here must not be confounded with “motive.” The legislature may be influenced by corrupt motives in the accomplishment of a design within its constitutional authority. Nothing is better settled than that upon this consideration the court will never enter. But suppose the legislature, by no means corruptly, but in all honesty and sincerity aims at the accomplishment of a design which it is forbidden by the constitution to accomplish. And let us strengthen the case by assuming that if the statute passed with such an aim is sustained by the courts, the result will be the accomplishment of the unconstitutional design. Are the courts justified in sustaining the statute merely because some other purpose is incidentally effected, at which the legislature might constitutionally have aimed?
Now religion concerns itself with two things, belief and conduct, and the distinction between one religion and another is two-fold—one requires a certain belief and certain conduct which the other forbids or does not require. Hence, it is not enough to say concerning the Sunday law: “What religion or religious creed or dogma is inculcated in that statute? Or what religion is prohibited? . . . Does it ask that any citizen shall believe in the God of the Bible or its teachings, or the doctrines of the Bible, the Koran or of Confucius, or the Talmud, or the Old or New Testament? Certainly not”—because, though no religious creed or dogma be inculcated, yet a “preference” may be given by a statute to one religion over another by the mere regulation of conduct. And this preference is given whenever conduct is regulated on religious grounds, according to the special prescription of any religious sect, or when the design of a statute is to punish an offense against religion as such. That Sunday laws do embody the prescription of a certain sect for the “observance” of that day is indisputable. Are they passed on religious grounds? Are they designed to punish offenses against religion as such? Blackstone classifies them with the provisions against “apostasy,” “heresy,” “non-conformity,” and the like, all of which things he calls, “Offenses against God and religion.”
This classification is followed in the “Codes” and Digests of Statutes of nearly every State and Territory in the Union. In dealing with the Sunday laws, the courts uniformly allude to them as provisions against “profanation” or “desecration.” But only a sacred thing can be profaned or desecrated; and whether a thing be sacred or not is altogether a matter of religion. So that to punish profanation or desecration is to punish an offense against religion as such.
That Sunday laws are passed on religious grounds is perfectly well known to every reasonable person. Mr. Tiedeman correctly says: “The most common form of legal interference in matters of religion is that which requires the observance of Sunday as a holy day. In these days the legal requirements do not usually extend beyond the compulsory cessation of labor, the maintenance of quiet upon the streets and the closing of all the places of amusements; but the public spirit which calls for the compulsory observance of these regulations, is the same, which in the colonial days of New England, imposed a fine for an unexcused absence from divine worship. Although other reasons have been assigned for the State regulation of the observance of Sunday in order to escape the constitutional objections that can be raised against it if it takes the form of a religious institution, those who are most active in securing the enforcement of the Sunday laws do so because of the religious character of the day, and not for any economical reason.”
“The effectiveness of the laws is measured by the influence of the Christian idea of Sunday as a religious institution.” So says Judge Cooley: “It is clear that these laws are supportable on authority notwithstanding the inconvenience which they occasion to those whose religious sentiments do not recognize the sacred character of the first day of the week.” And what is this but saying, and saying with perfect correctness, that Sunday laws simply embody the views of those who do recognize the “sacred” character of the first day of the week, and are therefore passed on religious grounds alone? “The Jew,” says Judge Cooley in a previous paragraph, “may plausibly urge that the law discriminates against his religion, and, by forcing him to keep a second Sabbath in each week unjustly, though by indirection, punishes him for his belief.” Why “plausibly”? Is not the discrimination perfectly plain? May it not be conclusively urged?
(To be continued.)
“ALL force employed to compel conscience, is after Satan’s own order.”
Just the Facts in the Case.
By W. E. Cornell
No one at all observing can fail to see that there is a growing disregard for Sunday as a day of religious worship, and in spite of the increase of churches and the multiplicity of pastors, the tide is not checked, but rather as was recently expressed in these columns by a typical National Reformer, “We can hardly tell now when our holy Sunday comes.” What is the matter? It is simply this, there is no divine authority for such an observance, and the people are beginning to find it out; and having found it out, what is more natural than that it should lose its sacredness in the minds of those who had previously regarded it as of divine appointment. One of the things that this enforced Sunday rest agitation is developing is this very fact; and when the real facts are brought to the attention of those who are clamoring for a Sunday law, the same old spirit is aroused that had possession of the persecutors of the early Christians, and wherever possible, manifests itself in about the same way. As a specimen of how some of the press is airing this subject, the following from the Davenport (Iowa) Democrat is submitted:
It is amusing to hear the Massachusetts congressman, Elijah Morse, warn the American people against the opening of the doors of the Columbian Exposition on Sunday because of the disregard of the Decalogue command to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. This command, he says, was handed down by Jehovah unto the sons of the earth amid the thunderings of Sinai. Let it be admitted that such was the fact, what then? The Massachusetts man knows, or ought to know, that the command that he quotes as being binding to an extreme degree upon the sons of men, through all the generations, had no reference whatever to Sunday, any more than it had to Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. It referred to the seventh day, and every Biblical or other scholar knows that the seventh day of the Decalogue was Saturday and not Sunday. There seems to be no conscientious gleam in the congressman’s mind about keeping the Fair open the Sinaitic Sabbath day. His pleading is for the pagan day of worship—the day so dear to the sun-worshiper—even Sunday. He and all the Christian world disregard the Sabbath with a perfect recklessness, and defy the seventh day of rest from birth to death. He is clearly out of the case, and is not to be regarded with the least degree of seriousness.
It is evident that by means of this controversy thousands are being made acquainted with the fact that Sunday is not the Sabbath by divine appointment, but that it rests only upon human authority.
W. E. CORNELL.
Bearing False Witness.
By C. P. B.
THE following is from the Pacific Methodist Advocate, published in San Francisco, California:—
A PESTILENTIAL SECT.
A body of Seventh-day Adventists packed the meeting of the American Sabbath Union at Chicago last week, and, when the ballot on Sabbath observance at the World's Fair was taken, voted a small majority against the resolution. The effrontery of these people is something amazing. Both self-respect and a sense of justice should have kept them out of a petitioning religious meeting, with the principles of which they were notoriously at variance. They were led by a man well known on this coast as a bitter foe to the civil Sabbath, and insinuated themselves into the meeting in violation of every rule of social decency. Ingersoll and his sympathizers could as properly assume to take part in the deliberations of the Evangelical Alliance. And yet the secular papers announce that the resolutions were defeated by the friends of the Sabbath. A pestilential sheet, known as the AMERICAN SENTINEL, the organ of this school, has been for several years past fulminating maledictions against this Government for even recognizing such a day as the Sabbath. It would sweep every vestige of the institution away. It is a malevolence rarely surpassed. Nobody objects to these people keeping Saturday as their day of rest; but the impudence of Lucifer is equaled in their effort to rob this Nation of its best badge of civilization and Christianity.
Our old readers will remember that the facts concerning this meeting were published in these columns three weeks ago. We shall, however, state them very briefly again.
The meeting which, according to the Advocate, the Adventists packed, was not a meeting of the American Sabbath Union, but was advertised as a “mass-meeting,” and everybody was invited. Of course anybody who wanted to go had a perfect right not only to be present but to vote.
The meeting, though advertised as a “mass-meeting,” was so very slimly attended that only about one hundred persons were present, and but little more than two-thirds of those present took interest enough in the proceedings to vote. When the resolutions were presented the Adventists could not endorse them, and so voted against them, as they had a perfect right to do; and greatly to their surprise defeated them—being a majority of those voting, though as a matter of fact they were probably only a minority of the whole number present.
There was no packing about it. The Adventists simply attended the meeting because it was held in the quarter of the city in which they reside, and because they wanted to hear what was said. They evidently made no effort to “pack” the meeting else they would have had present a much larger number than they did have, for they certainly had no idea that a mass-meeting in the city of Chicago would consist of less than one hundred persons, and that such a meeting could be controlled by less than fifty persons.
In the light of these statements to which the common sense of every man who reads them must assent, what must be thought of the religious paper that would publish such a tirade of abuse as is here quoted from the Pacific Methodist Advocate.
C. P. B.
Sounds the Warning.
By Editor
[This article is from the Coming Age, a religious paper published in Los Angeles, Cal., by Rev. Thomas Haskins, D.D., of the Protestant Episcopal Church.]
AGAIN WE GIVE much space to extracts from the AMERICAN SENTINEL. That journal is set for the defense of our civil and religious liberties, and its warning voice at this time deserves to be heeded. It is possible that this country is passing through, if it has not already passed, a crisis in its destiny, which is to determine its fortunes for the future. Taken up, as its people are, with the little affairs of every day life, they do not realize that it has been drifting away from the principles upon which it was founded, and that its Government has fallen under a divine sentence as inexorable as that of Babylon under Belshazzer, or of Jerusalem when the Saviour went out of the Temple.
The question hinges on religion. Strange as it may seem, if the position taken by the SENTINEL be the correct one, and we confess we think it is, the efforts which a misguided and blinded religious public have been making to save the nation, are to be its destruction. It was founded by the children of men who had come out of the fires of persecution, amid the ashes of governments consumed by God's punitive justice for interfering in his spiritual government of the heart and conscience; and intended by them to be forever a civil government distinct from religion, but it has now, by a singular combination of events, been declared to be, by the three co-ordinate branches of government, judicial, legislative and executive, a religious power, with authority to legislate on religious matters, and, of course, to execute penalties.
One would suppose with the open book of history before a nation not much over a century old, such an event would have stirred the people to the highest pitch of excitement and have rekindled fires from the stuff of which martyrs are made, but the most singular circumstance is that the great mass of the people do not know that the Constitution of our country has been subverted, and what is worse, they do not care. The SENTINEL has pointed out how this has been brought about, and the SENTINEL22deserves to be heard, because to our certain knowledge it pointed out years before the event took place that this country would in some way, and in due time,—the SENTINEL not knowing how or when,—declare itself to be a religious power, and so fulfill prophecy. It has come about through a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously concurred in, in the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity, New York City, and in the Sunday closing of the World's Fair, passed by both houses of the legislative branch of government and signed by the chief executive.
The people do not know the ultimate effect of this joint action; if they did they would not submit to it; but they are either on the one hand utterly indifferent to religion, do not believe in prophecy, nor in the Lord's government of nations; or else they are blind leaders of the blind and think they are doing God service in securing a declaration that this is a Christian Nation and should execute Christian laws.
What will be the ultimate outcome of all this; how long the long-suffering of God will give a misguided people and government to see the error of their ways and repent, before he executes his wrath upon them both, he only knows. But that we are in the midst of the greatest crisis that the world has seen for many a generation, and at the turning point of the favoring fortunes of the government of this people we have no manner of doubt, and we shall watch, and advise our readers to watch, the signs of the times with the most critical eye, and to search the Scriptures to ascertain the purposes of God foretold long before with regard to this, as well as every other nation which presumes to meddle with his moral and spiritual government of his people.
“The Friends and Foes.”
By W. N. HYATT
THE noted lecturer, Joseph Cook, of Boston, delivered an address in the Grand Opera House at Superior, Wis., on Dec. 18, under the auspices of the American Protestant League, his subject being, “The friends and foes of the public schools.”
His speech was reported by the Evening Telegraph, of Superior, from which I quote some of the gentleman’s sayings, which must be of special interest just at this juncture when religion and politics are so badly mixed. Mr. Cook seems to be alarmed at the influence that Catholics are gaining in political affairs, and fears lest they may gain the balance of power in the Nation. On this point he said:—
There are now about 8,000,000 Catholics in the United States, and about 40,000,000 Protestants. In ten or twenty years we shall have 100,000,000, and the Catholics 20,000,000, sufficient you see to turn any closely contested election. The parochial school teaches obedience to the clerical party, and even now the clerical influence is felt in politics.
Certainly, “the clerical influence is felt in politics,” in a very marked manner when ministers lobby in the halls of Congress, and the churches send petitions and memorialize Congress asking for the political power to control and regulate religious matters. And when feeling and fearing this clerical influence—this church party—senators will stand on the floor of Congress and gravely say, speaking of the bill for closing the World’s Fair on Sunday: “I would write the provision for the closure in any form that the religious sentiment of the country demands.”
Truly the clerical influence is felt in politics! But is it only the influence of the clergy of the Catholic Church that is felt? Who are the clergymen that do the political wire-pulling? Are they not professed Protestants seeking to gain control of the Government in the interest of the churches?
But the Government is no safer under the influence of professed Protestant preachers and churches than under the influence of the Roman Church and clergy. Either means ruin.
Again, speaking of the Jesuits, their influence in this country, dictating where least expected, etc., Mr. Cook said: “I ask only that the North Americans do as the South Americans did—expel them. Jesuitism is a naked sword with its hilt in Rome and its points in every place.” True it is! and it pierces the vitals of every government it touches. But what better is that same principle of Jesuitism under the name of Protestantism, which seeks to do the same wicked work that Jesuitism has always done?
Mr. Cook further said: “We deny the union of State and Church, but we do not deny the co-operation of Christianity and the State.”
That is all that the bishops asked of the imperial power in the fourth century. Just you (Constantine) help us and we and our church will help you. The Papacy was the result. But a still more remarkable statement was made by this noted speaker:—
Americans who put down slavery are not going to submit to sectarianism. The church or the family are not sufficient to educate the whole people, for one fourth of the people never see the inside of a church. The family that does not send its children to church is not fit to educate its children. And how can the church which never sees them. Neither can do as much as the school. . . . We put the child into the stomach of the school and turn out Americans. . . . We want the common school to educate the head and heart. We want the three links of iron, silver, and gold—the common school, colleges and education—joined. And the three to bind the American people to God.
The education for which Mr. Cook pleads is that which will bind the people to God. Moral training—religion. But notice that he pleads that the public schools, which are supported by the State, shall do this educating in morals, because “the church and the family are not sufficient.” “Pity ’tis ’tis true.” But why does not the gentleman, seeing the insufficiency of the churches for this great work recommend that they petition the God of heaven, who is the source of all power and righteousness, to make them sufficient for that work. We would ask: Whose or what religion would Mr. Cook have taught by the Government? His, of course. He would not have the Government teach his children false doctrine, surely.
Who would decide this matter? the Church? Then the Church would be dominating the State. And for the Protestant churches to take control of the Government to teach religion, to bind the people to God—is just as wicked, and the results just as subversive of the true principle of our Government as it would be for the Catholic Church to do the same thing. The whole thing is antichristian and un-American.
But Mr. Cook makes a still more astonishing statement: “But the Constitution says that religion, morals, and education must be encouraged. Thus the Constitution says that this is a Christian country. It gives to Protestants one day out of seven for rest, thereby acknowledging Christianity.”
Does this renowned American know what the Constitution says? He surely does. Then why such reckless statements? Every one knows or ought to know that there are no such statements made nor ideas held in the Constitution, as “acknowledging Christianity” or that “this is a Christian country.” The founders of our Government, noble men they were, and wiser than most of the modern divines, knew enough to leave these things out of the fundamental law; for they are indeed out of the realm of civil government.
But the Constitution teaches just the opposite of Mr. Cook’s statements, viz., “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Amendments, art. 1. And in the treaty with Tripoli made in 1797 the statement is made, that the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. (Treaties are a part of the fundamental law. See Constitution, art. 6).
The true Protestant idea of the province of civil government, is best stated in the immortal words of the Protestant princes of Germany at the Diet of Spires from whence the name Protestant originated.
“In matters of conscience the majority has no power. . . . To protect liberty of conscience is the duty of the State, and this is the limit of its authority in matters of religion.”
Is Mr. Cook’s doctrine Protestant, or Papal? Which? W. N. HYATT.
Religion and Irreligion in France.
By W. A. SPICER
The truth stated in a recent SENTINEL, regarding the influences which fostered the infidelity of the French Revolution, is put in very similar words by Prof. Goldwin Smith, the very well-known essayist:—
The religion of the French Revolution was a State church which, deserted by the convictions of the people, but retaining their outward allegiance, reduced them to hypocrisy and to atheism.
Is there not also a lesson timely for us now in the fact that even the Reign of Terror, away down beneath the surface, was a blind and mad effort to force France into that ideal millennium of the philosophers, wherein was to be unity, equality, and brotherly love? Every man was responsible that every other man had this brotherly love in his heart, or that he was put where he would not block the wheels of progress. Legislative assemblies produced “paper models” of the millennium, and the pike and guillotine were unceasingly busy, but all were alike powerless to force the reign of peace and goodwill into hearts unsubdued by the power of God.
Replying to M. Roux, who in his “Historie Parlementaire” held that the French Revolution was “a dead-lift effort, after eighteen hundred years of preparation, to realize—the Christian religion,” Carlyle says in his history of that epoch:—
Alas, no, M. Roux. A gospel of brotherhood, not according to any of the four old evangelists and calling on men to repent, and amend each his own wicked existence that they might be saved; but a gospel rather, as we often hint, according to a new fifth evangelist, Jean-Jacques, calling on men to amend the whole world's wicked existence, and be saved by making a constitution. A thing different and distant toto cœlo, as they say; the whole breadth of the sky, and further if possible.
The history of those days shows also that men who pledge themselves to wrong principles, and seek to attain their aims by methods subversive of civil as well as23religious liberty, know not to what lengths they may be led. Mild manners and a genial disposition are not proof against the remorseless and resistless logic of wrong principles coupled with human depravity and Satanic suggestion. It is a matter of record that Robespierre in his early career resigned a judgeship at Arras rather than condemn a criminal to death; yet he followed his theories to the bitter end and now stands “pilloried in history as a monster of cruelty which he never believed himself to be.” Another, Danton, saw too late the ruin and strove to restrain from going to its full length the flood he had helped to let loose. When at last condemned to the guillotine for trying to stay the torrent, he was heard to say:—
This time twelve month I was moving the creation of that same Revolutionary Tribunal. I crave pardon for it of God and man. They are all brothers of Cain. . . . O, it were better to be a poor fisherman than to meddle with governing of men!
These and other popular idols were cast down by the maddened Paris mob when it “found itself to have been guided, not to a millennium, but to a massacre.” What a warning to those who in the slightest degree, for any fancied good to come out of it, are diverging from principles of right and truth and teaching men to do so.
Those who nowadays believe in an official religion, and the enforcement of Sunday laws in our country, frequently cite the unhappy condition of France, with its “continental Sunday” and irreligion. “This country is not France,” said a Chicago clergyman lately, giving his reasons why the World's Fair should be closed by act of Congress. True; but is not the situation in France very like that which these same clergy are working to bring about in our country? When Napoleon was reconstructing France, Lafayette tried to have him adopt the true principle regarding the separation of religion and the State, which was working so well in the new Republic across the Atlantic. But Napoleon counted only immediate expediency, and said: “Lafayette may be right in theory; but what is a theory? A folly, when it is wished to apply to a mass of men.” So was fastened upon the new France the old curse of making religion a department of State. And to-day why should those who wish to make the State a teacher of religion and a guardian of religious observances in this country, point the finger of reproach at France, where the State now subsidizes the churches as public ministers of morality, and salaries not only Catholics and Protestants, but Jews and Mohammedans as well? Official religion has helped to make France what it is, and anyone knows that one of the greatest dangers in that republic for years has been the intriguing of religionists for political power and prestige. How then can American citizens hope to see anything but ruin and disruption in the efforts of religious zealots to set in operation here the same forces which have been the curse of Church and State countries in all time?
W. A. SPICER.
Abiding Sabbath And Lord's Day.
By Alonzo T. Jones
BY ALONZO T. JONES.
A pointed review of the $500 and $1,000 prize essays in support of the Christian Sabbath, so called. Those desiring some $1,000 reasons for keeping the first day of the week, will find them here. 173 pages, 20 cents. Pacific Press, 43 Bond St., New York City.
ATTRACTIVE TRUTHS IN LESSON AND STORY.
A series of outline lessons with illustrative stories and Scripture verses for the use of those who are inexperienced in teaching the young. It is suitable for use in children's meetings and for home teaching. Cloth, $1.25.
“I find the most satisfactory pen of its kind,” says Chauncey M. Depew, President of the New York Central R. R., and thousands of others are ready to bear a similar testimony.
This pen is simple and yet highly philosophical in its construction. It rarely gets out of order and seldom needs repairs.
The pen-points are fine, medium or coarse, and of all grades of flexibility from soft to very stiff. Any hand can be suited. A full guarantee goes with each and every pen. The cut shows a No. 4 pen (gentleman's size) reduced about one half in size.
Address all Orders to
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY,
12TH & CASTRO STS., OAKLAND, CAL. 43 BOND ST., NEW YORK.
MISSIONARY LADIES IN FOREIGN LANDS—By Mrs. E. R. Pilman, author of “Heroines of the Mission fields,” etc. 12mo, 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75c.
FAVORITE BIBLE STORIES FOR THE YOUNG—With numerous illustrations. 16mo, handsomely illuminated board covers, 50 cents.; cloth extra, 75 cents.
HENRY M. STANLEY, the African Explorer—By Arthur Montefiore, F. R. G. S. Brought down to 1889. 12mo, 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75 cents.
JOHN BRIGHT, the Man of the People—By Jesse Page, author of “Bishop Patterson,” “Samuel Crowther,” etc. 12mo, 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75 cents.
GINN'S CLASSICAL ATLAS—4to, cloth, $2.50. This work contains 23 colored maps, which were projected and executed by the late A. Keith Johnson, with a complete index.
JAMES CHALMERS, Missionary and Explorer of Rarotonga and New Guinea—By Wm. Robson, of the London Missionary Society. 12mo, 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75 cents.
JOHN GRIFFITH, Founder of the Hankow Mission, Central China—By William Robson, of the London Missionary society. 12mo, 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75 cents.
SAMUEL CROWTHER, the Slave Boy who became Bishop of the Niger—By Jesse Page, author of “Bishop Patterson.” 12mo, 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75 cents.
WILLIAM CAREY, the Shoemaker who became a Missionary—By Rev. J. B. Myers, Association Secretary Baptist Missionary Society. 12mo, 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75 cents.
ROBERT MORRISON, the Pioneer of Chinese Missions—By Wm. J. Townsend, Sec. Methodist New Connexion Missionary Society. 12mo, 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75 cents.
THE NEW BIBLE ATLAS AND GAZETTEER, with 16 colored maps by W. and A. Keith Johnson, and a very elaborate gazetteer, giving information about nearly every place which is marked upon the maps, with scripture references. 4to, cloth, $1.50.
MEMOIRS OF EDWIN BAINBRIDGE.—The subject of this memoir is the young English tourist who met his death at the dreadful volcanic eruption of Tarawera, New Zealand, on the 10th of June, 1886. 12mo, 160 pages, fully illustrated, cloth extra, 75c.
SIBERIA AND THE NIHILISTS.—Why Kennan went to Siberia. By William Jackson Armstrong. This is one of the most intensely interesting and thoroughly reliable contributions to literature on Russia and the Nihilists ever published. Everybody should read this book, because no one can be intelligent upon the subject of which it treats without familiarity with its contents. 160 pages, paper covers, 25 cents.
NEW HISTORICAL ATLAS AND GENERAL HISTORY—By Robert H. Labberton. This is the only atlas that has a map for every period. A map for any particular date can instantly be found by any one. It contains, now made for the first time, maps of the Chaldean, Elamitic, Egyptian, Kossean, Armenian, Hittite, and Assyrian Empires. It contains 198 maps, printed in colors, 30 genealogical charts, and is complete in one volume. 4to, 312 pages. Sent by mail or express, post-paid. Half law sheep, $2.75; half morocco, $3.00.
