To govern their own spirit and deal righteously among themselves is a greater an
Page 1
The American Sentinel
August 11, 1892
Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · August 11, 1892
To govern their own spirit and deal righteously among themselves is a greater and a more difficult thing for the people of a nation than to take the cities of their enemy. Where a people do not deal righteously each man with his neighbor, civil conditions of internal dissension must soon arise more dangerous than foreign war. Those who sigh for justice and equity, and those who go about to do injustice and inequity can not live always together in peace. If the constitutional theory of a government upholds civil equity, and civil and religious freedom unalloyed, and the government in its statutes and judicial practice is false to its principles, either it will utterly fail, or revolution must purge it.
THE first century of national existence saw that governmental error expiated in blood and fire. But parallel with it had existed another error, as fundamental and even more deeply entrenched in human prejudice, and appealing with greater subtlety to the popular mind for support. That was the fallacy of the support of religion and the enforcement of religious forms and doctrines by the civil law. This found its expression in legislative decrees maintaining previously existing laws, drawn from old English statutes enacted under Church and State rule, for the enforcement of Sunday observance, the punishment of blasphemy, etc., the public maintenance of chaplains for the army, legislative assemblies, and State institutions, the exemption of church property from taxation, and other less prominent legislation respecting religion.
Thus the Constitution had distinctly forbidden to the general Government. The different States, however, were not prohibited from legislating in respect to religion, yet they inserted clauses in their respective bills of rights which mirrored, in almost every case, the spirit of the restriction put upon Congress. At the same time the States permitted the same discrepancy to exist in this regard between their bills of rights and their statute and municipal law, which some of the States had previously permitted to exist between the assertion of the right of all mankind to freedom and natural equality before the law, and the legalizing of the enslavement of the colored race.
The theory of the Government of the United States was based upon the equitable principle of equality before the law for all men. The practice of a portion of the States was based upon the assumption that a part of their population had no civil rights which the remainder was bound to respect. Where such antagonistic conditions exist revolution is a necessity. In this case revolution did result.
THE Government of the United States was founded upon the correct theory of complete non-interference in questions of religion; the only possible basis upon which civil equity can be maintained. The State governments tacitly accepted this for themselves but permitted sections inconsistent with it to creep into their constitutions; and laws, in direct contravention of it, to be placed and remain upon their statute books. The first great error, the physical enslavement of men was expelled from the body politic before the first century of its existence was past; the second great error, the assumption of the right to hold in bondage men’s minds, is now, in the second century of the Republic, just beginning to be openly and generally asserted. The Congress of the United States, both Houses, has traitor-
THE United States has claimed to be an example to the world of the success of free institutions. The fundamental theory of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States is the acknowledgment of the natural rights of all mankind. To secure to its citizens the full enjoyment of these natural rights this Government was instituted.
THE general Government of the United States was established upon the principle that all men are born free. The individual colonies had previously decided differently, and in statehood retained the fatal difference. This direct antagonism between the social custom of negro slavery and the civil laws upholding it in certain of the States, and the expressed principle of the possession of inalienable rights by all men equally, continued to be more and more of a disturbing element in the social system and body politic of this Nation, until the Proclamation of Emancipation was signed, and the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution adopted.
To have succeeded in securing the practical application of this, the only true theory of civil government, and to have placed every citizen in the possession of his absolute rights, and have protected him in their enjoyment, would have required a greater internal revolution, within the thirteen colonies, than the outward revolution which freed them from the burden of English rule.
THE Puritans had felt the heavy hand of religious intolerance placed upon themselves, and had escaped from it. But this had not taught them the first principles of civil equity in religious matters,—no, not even tolerance. The colonies had felt the weight of civil oppression, and had rebelled. From their experiences they learned the correct theory of human rights. They expressed this theory in a governmental formula, but they did not fully apply it.
ously joined hands with those who assail the right, both divine and constitutional, of untrammeled freedom in religious matters. The boom of the first gun fired upon Sumter sent a chill of prophetic dread through the Nation. The fifty-second Congress has fired upon the Constitution, has attacked the bulwark of constitutional religious liberty, and overthrown it. Are the citizens of the United States unaware of the onslaught, or are they all traitors? Does history raise its warning voice in vain? Does prophecy speak to heedless ears? They both speak the same words, and their speech is not uncertain. By them, that which lies at the end of this road upon which Congress has just entered is made clearer than noonday. Where is the end, and what is it that is there?
—W. H. M.
The Gospel; What It Is, and Its Work As Opposed to the Mystery of Iniquity.
By A. T. Jones
Text: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matt. 28:18–20.
That which they were to teach all nations is spoken of by Mark as “the gospel,” going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; he that believes not shall be damned. But according to Luke, the Saviour at the same time said unto them, “Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” Luke 24:49. Then in Acts 1:5–8:—
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
All these verses are essential for us to know the full force of the commission which the Lord gave his disciples at that time. They were to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, teaching that to all nations; and yet they were not to go until they were endued with power from on high. It would have been useless for them to go until that time; because the gospel is itself the power of God unto salvation, and the preaching of the gospel is the preaching of the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes. And for them to go forth thinking to preach the power of God when they themselves were not acquainted with that power, and were not connected with that power, would have been simply to preach empty words; it would not have been the gospel, because the gospel is the power of God. This is what the Lord himself has called it,—the power of God unto salvation. And to preach that gospel, I say again, is to preach the power of God. Any professed preaching of that gospel, which is not the preaching of the power of God, is not the preaching of the gospel of God at all, it is not the preaching of the gospel of Christ. It may be preaching about the gospel, or it may be preaching another gospel; but it is not the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore he would not have them go at all to say anything about this, to attempt to preach it, until they were endued with the power of that gospel itself, the power of God, the power from on high. Then when they should receive power, the Holy Ghost coming upon them—then he said they should bear witness in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.
In the first chapter of 1 Corinthians, beginning with the 17th verse, is Paul's record of his connection with this gospel, and what he was called to preach: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” Then with Paul the preaching of the gospel was the preaching of the cross of Christ. Next verse: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.” Then the preaching of the gospel is the preaching of the cross of Christ, and that is the preaching of the power of God; for Christ is the power of God, as he says in a further verse, and the wisdom of God. So I read on:—
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.
The Greeks sought after wisdom, and the Lord sent them that which they counted only foolishness. The Jews required a sign, and the Lord gave them that which they turned only into a stumbling-block. The Greeks sought after wisdom, and God gave it; but they would not take it, for they counted it only foolishness. The Jews required a sign, and God gave it; but they would not receive it because it came not just as they wanted; therefore they turned it into a stumbling-block, and got no good out of it. “The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified” “unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
Now notice, “We preach Christ crucified.” Unto them who are called, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. That is what men are sent to preach; because that is the gospel. And the weakness of God is stronger than men, and the foolishness of God is wiser than men. But notice, they were not sent to preach weakness; they were sent to preach power, even the power of God and they preached it. But even if they had been sent to preach the weakness of God, it would have been stronger than anything men can do or know. Then the thing for men to do is to accept it when God sends it—accept it; for even though it be counted the weakness of God, it is stronger than anything men can get hold of, or create anyway.
Then they sought after wisdom, and the Lord sent them wisdom; he sent them Christ, the wisdom of God. He sent them his own wisdom, the wisdom of God himself; but they counted it foolishness. Yet even though they did, they should have accepted it, for the foolishness of God was wiser than anything they knew or could know otherwise. Then when God sends a message, no difference how we view it, we are to accept it. When God sends a message, men are to accept it, even though we count it weakness; for it is stronger than anything men give. It comes from God, it will not hurt anybody. Even though it be counted foolishness, that has nothing to do with it; accept it. Not that it is foolishness on God's part but men may count it foolishness. Well, as it came from God, then why not accept it? Coming from God, it is wiser than anything man ever got hold of, or ever could. Then I say again, when God sends a message, no difference how men view it, or what they think it is, it is their duty to accept of it; and then they will find out it is something different than they thought it was; because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.
He has chosen the weak things of the world to confound those that are mighty, because the weakness of this world can have the power of God; and that will bring to naught the things of the mighty, and confound the things of the world. “And things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence.”
“For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” That is all any one can know who preaches the gospel—Jesus Christ, and him crucified. That is the whole story; that is all the gospel; that is all there is of God. “And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
Now, any faith that stands in the wisdom of men will fail. Any faith that rests upon the power of argument will fail. Every faith will fail but that which rests upon the power of God, and stands in the power of God. Now, when the power of God is received, when our faith stands upon that, and in that, then the argument will always come with it; there will be an argument that is stronger than all things else. But the argument is derived from the power, and not the power from the argument. Therefore, any faith that stands in the strength of argument and the power of theoretical demonstration, will never stand the test that will be brought upon those who are to enter the kingdom of God.
(Continued next week.)
WHILST we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe, the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we can not deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yielded to the evidences which have convinced us.—James Madison.
The Postmaster and the Adventists.
By C. P. B.
A GENTLEMAN in Kansas having read in THE SENTINEL the account of the persecution of Adventists in Henry Co., Tenn., found himself unable to believe such things possible in the United States in the latter part of the nineteenth century; and, that he might know of a surety concerning the facts, he wrote to the postmaster at Springville, Tenn., asking if the things which he had read were true. The postmaster's letter has been sent to us, and here it is verbatim, without even a letter added to it, or taken from it, with the exception of the omission of the name of the gentleman to whom the letter was written:—
Springville July 11 1892
MR. ———— Sir yours of the 7th Received I Cannot tell why I am Cold on to answer the questions in your note But I will answer them as Correctley as I can and I am personely acquainted with all of the Gentlemen now in Jale or pretended to Be But I doubt very much wheather the Jale doors has Been locked Since they have Been put in there or not But I think not But I dwo no that they was put in Jale for a strict violation of the Sunday law and I no when a pore Boy is prosecuted for a violation of the law for Carryin a pistol or playin Cards they ar put in Jale and locked up and they have to stay untid they ar paid out But I only charge this to the Jaler for lack of his duty according to law Well I will now give ther names J. H. Dortch W. D. Lowry J. Moon and James Stem they all Live within 2 miles of this post office and dwo ther maling and Receving of male at this place ther church is within 2 miles of this place and it is very Demarlizen to the young and Rising people of this Settlement they call themselves Seven day adventist they pretend to keep Saturday and Work on Sunday at all kinds of farm work plow Role logs hail Cross ties and in fact there biggest days work on Sunday when they no that it is Strictly against the State law to work on Sunday there is a little nest of them in this Settlement and have been trying hard to Increase there church for about 10 years and I think they have in that time got in there church about 12 white male members and 1 negro man and Wife and about the Same amount of white ladys and Sum 12 or 15 Childer But there is no other church of the kind in this County nor adJoining Countes there has Been 3 Jentlemen of this Church Indted in this Cort Sum 2 or 3 years ago for working on Sunday they was fined 25 dollars Each they appeled to the Supreme Cort of the State and the Judgment of the Circuit Court was Conferred But they yaud not pay fine nor Cost and of Corse according to law had to go to Jale But they was walking about over town the most of ther time these fore Jentlemen was tried Befor Judg Swigart and the Judg Red the law and the Desisions of other Corts all against the Sunday working But Said Jentlemen I will onley fine you one dollar Each and the Cost But they will not pay Either fine or Cost and I learn that them of that Church that is at home is Still at work on there farms on Sunday Just Shur as Sundy Cums there is Sum of these Jentlemen that is Very Clever men But I think Every good Citizen aught to observe the laws of his Cuntry and I think that if a man Violats the laws of his Cuntry wilfully and nonly and Cannot Be made Suffer for it he mite Be Coded an outlaw for which I Suppen there is a Remady or at least aught to Bee they ar like the Rest of us only Commen talent I Belive I have in all the Information Cold for
Respectfully Thos Riggs P M
This letter confirms all that has been said in THE SENTINEL concerning the Springville persecutions. The writer of the letter is one of the worst enemies of the Adventists, yet it will be noticed that he has no evil thing to say of them except concerning their faith. Their church, he says, has a very demoralizing influence in the community. The sense in which it is “demoralizing” will be explained by the following dialogue between a Methodist and an Adventist in that neighborhood shortly before the recent persecution was inaugurated:—
Methodist.—“You people are doing a great deal of harm in this country.”
Adventist.—“Why, how is that? We are quiet, inoffensive people.”
Methodist.—“Yes, but were it not for your church we would have regular meetings here at Springville, and all the young people who now go to your meetings would be working members of the Methodist church.”
Adventist.—“Well, show us our error and we will all be Methodists.”
Methodist.—“That’s just what we’re going to do; we’re going to prosecute every one of you.”
The “great deal of harm,” and the “demoralizing” influence consist in teaching things contrary to the doctrines of the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches, and principally in denying that Sunday is the Sabbath.
The postmaster at Springville has considerably underestimated the membership of the Adventist church in his neighborhood. One of the editors of THE SENTINEL has spent a number of weeks at Springville and is personally acquainted with twenty-seven male members of the Adventist church there. The number of female members is somewhat larger. It is the most prosperous church in the neighborhood; and the only one having regular weekly services. This fact makes it a thorn in the side of members of other churches. The persecution is designed to weaken it and turn the tide toward the other churches.
The statement made in the letter that Adventists do their biggest day’s work on Sunday is absolutely false. As has been previously stated in THE SENTINEL, they avoid on Sunday all work that could possibly be a real annoyance. Only the more quiet kinds of farm work are done in the Springville neighborhood on Sunday. The postmaster there may not know personally just how this is, for none of his immediate neighbors are members of that church and none of the Adventists live in the village. They are all farmers and the postmaster knows of their work only as he hears of it or else goes out of his way to see them at work.
C. P. B.
Sunday Closing, Who Asks it, and Why?
By Publius
THERE is very much more to this question of Sunday closing of the World's Fair than most people are aware. Who are making the demands for the closing of the Fair on Sunday? Why do they make these demands? It is the churches, and the foundation reason is because Sunday is an institution of the Church. If it would do violence to their convictions to attend on Sunday, can't they stay away? Or, do they ask a law, fearing that they will be unable to resist the temptation of open gates? Do they need closed gates so they can keep a Sabbath? Why not ask for a law compelling them to stay away on Sunday, and leave others to exercise their freedom? The Jew, Seventh-day Baptist, and Seventh-day Adventist, observe the seventh day of the week; why not close the gates on the seventh day? The Mohammedan keeps Friday; why not close the gates on Friday? Which is the true Sabbath, any way? Who will tell us?
Only a small portion of the people of this Nation keep a Sabbath. Do the Christian people of this land of liberty, desire to resort to force to compel others to do as they do? Do they think these will attend church service if the gates are closed? Do they not know that closed gates mean more patronage to the saloon, more liquor drank, more debauchery, more crime? Do they not know that, if Congress shall take action in the matter, it will be an unwarranted assumption of power, and class legislation? And do not they know that such action of Congress, would be but the beginning of a union of religion and the State that would never be checked till almost every institution of the Church would be incorporated into law, and enforced by the civil power? Are they ready to assume all the consequences of such legislation? Are they? —Publius, in McIntosh Times.
Despotism of the Church.
[The following extracts are from the speech of Senator Palmer of Illinois, in the Senate, July 12; the subject under discussion being the sundry civil appropriation bill, and the World's Fair appropriation with the Sunday closing proviso.]
THE State of Illinois has never assumed to require the actual observance of any of the Sabbaths, either the Jewish or the Christian Sabbath. The people of the State of Illinois, so far as I know their opinions, and they are best expressed in their statutes, treat the observance of the Sabbath as a personal duty to be determined by each individual for himself. The theory upon which our laws rest is that men are responsible to the Supreme Being for their own conduct, and that the State is in no wise responsible for them; that the State has no right to control the personal opinions or conduct of men on any day, subject to this limitation:—
Whoever disturbs the peace and good order of society by labor . . . shall be fined, etc.
It has been held in Illinois, and, I think, it has been held in most of the States, that the State has no right to determine that men shall observe the first day of the week in any particular method; but the object and function of the State, as we maintain, is that each citizen shall have the right without disturbance to observe the Sabbath in such manner as seems to him in point of conscience to be his duty and that no person shall disturb him in the exercise of his conscientious right. I know that is the theory which has been enforced by judicial decision. It has been held that the State has no right to prescribe obedience to any mere moral requirement that does not disturb others, leaving each man to determine to discharge his own duty to that Infinite Being who rules the universe, regarding each man as his own priest, and to this extent his own king. We have never recognized the authority of the States to prescribe moral duty. We simply understand that the obligation of the State is to protect us, every one of us, in the exercise of our own rights, leaving it to each individual to determine the matter of conscience according to his own degree of enlightenment or according to his own sense of obligation.
I venture to say that whatever may be said to the contrary, that is the practical law of every State in the Union. There may be vestiges yet of ancient requirements, but the courts have modified them, and to-day in New England, where at one time the Sunday was regarded with great reverence and where Sunday laws were enforced with despotic force, it is no longer the case. Illinois is like the other States in that respect.
Still in respect to this matter I should hope that the Senate would be satisfied with the rule of the Illinois Legislature that each man should be left undisturbed to serve God in his own way, to keep the Sabbath in his own way, free from disturbance. The Senator from Maine says244that there are theaters open in Chicago on Sunday; I have no doubt it is true; but I had not supposed when they were not disturbing others, that it was a ground of legal censure, whatever might be said, I agree, in moral censure of acts like that. But in Maine, in populous cities, I have no doubt amusements are indulged in, not perhaps to the same extent; but amusements are no doubt permissible on Sunday according to the customs of the Senator's own State.
However, there is another view of this case. Mr. President, this is to be an international exhibition. We speak of it as a mere show. It is to be a great national event. Do I say national? It is an event that is to be far more than national. The word “international” does not express it. It is to be the celebration of an event which has had a larger influence upon the destinies of mankind than any other which has occurred within the history of our race since the resurrection of the Lord on the Sabbath—the discovery of this vast continent, now inhabited by perhaps nearly a hundred millions of inhabitants—and we are inviting men from all countries on earth. There will be at Chicago the representatives, I was about to say, of every civilized government; there will be representatives at the Exposition of men of noncivilized races, the Mohammedans, with their peculiar observances, and the continental nations of Europe, and England, and Scotland, and the islands of the sea, and the Indians. It is to be a gathering of all the races of the earth at one spot celebrating the grandest event in the earth's history.
I maintain that therefore the law that each man shall be allowed to pursue his own views of duty, being compelled to be regardful of the rights of others is a proper law applied to this subject. In reverence for the Sunday of the Christians, I do not mean to allow it to be believed that I have no sufficient regard for that holy day, but I have never yet felt that it was my right to impose my opinions upon other people. I have insisted that you shall on this day leave me undisturbed, and leave Christian men undisturbed; that you shall leave the sanctuary undisturbed; that wherever men assemble themselves together for devotion, or I may say amusement, on that day they shall be undisturbed. What more can be asked? If I could be clothed with any portion of the power of the Almighty perhaps I might do otherwise, but I do not believe myself authorized to denounce all that may be deemed enemies according to the law of the Supreme Being.
Let that occasion be national, international, universal. I think the narrow rule insisted upon here is unwise; but if it shall be the sense of the Senate that it shall be done, it is the business of the country, not mine. . . .
I have been told, and I have no doubt it is true, that many of the Christian people of Chicago resist this proposition; but not all of them. There are a large number of seventh-day people who believe that Sunday is not the holy day. There are a great many people who agree with me that the Legislature has no right to dictate to others what day shall be kept as the holy one. There are many who think that way. There are thousands again who think that this opportunity afforded to the laborer, to the toiler, and to his wife and his children, ought not to be thrown away.
But I am told that there is another element who are quite as earnest as the good people. I understand that all the saloon-keepers in Chicago are in favor of closing this institution on the Sabbath day. I can understand why it should be so. The multitudes that will go to Chicago at that time, instead of going into the Fair, and witnessing the Exhibition, being there alone, strangers, will go about the saloons and places of that sort on Sunday. I understand that there is a perfect agreement on that point, and that the whisky-sellers are in favor of closing the Fair on the Sabbath.
I have one thing to say in conclusion. There are gentlemen who talk about the American Sabbath. Mr. President, I reverence American institutions. I have no sympathy with the foreign sentiment; I have no eagerness to adopt anything foreign; but I do believe that American sentiment has undergone a change under the influence of broader views of individual rights. New England sentiment at one time actually required a very close observance of Sunday, but that was the despotism not of God, but of church, and it is a remarkable fact that in another portion of the Union, where more liberal views are indulged in, the morality of the people was as complete and as perfect as it was in New England.
It is said by a late writer that it is very remarkable that in New England where theoretically popular rights were most regarded, the government was most despotic, while in another quarter, where aristocratic ideas were to some extent recognized, actual, personal liberty was better protected than in New England. The change has taken place and we can not resist it. We may talk about it, we may speak about the American Sabbath, and it deserves reverence, but it is for me to revere the Sabbath and it is not for me to impose upon another that obligation.
Their Own Testimony.
The Christian Statesman and the Union Signal have denied that the brewers and saloon-keepers of Chicago are in favor of Sunday closing of the Fair, but they are contradicted by the brewers and the saloonists themselves and by the testimony of those who have taken pains to learn their views. The following interview is from the Washington Post:—
“I can state from actual personal knowledge that the brewers of Chicago are to a man in favor of Sunday closing of the World's Fair,” said S. R. Keogh, a well-known attorney of the Lake City, at the National Hotel. “The brewers and saloon men,” he continued, “are delighted at the action of Congress in requiring the Exposition to be closed on that day, and if necessary they would raise a big amount of cash to have that pernicious piece of legislation enacted. They know that the hordes of people, if debarred from inspection of exhibits, would seek solace and amusement in the bar-rooms, that will not be closed Sundays, and augment the revenues of the proprietors by many thousands of dollars. The sporting fraternity, also, advocates the proposition from the same spirit of self-interest that actuates the whisky men. The drinking element would not exhaust all their means in the rum shops, but would, after spending part of the day in imbibing, be ready for tempting fortune in almost any way that was convenient.
“If we can only get the appropriation from Congress on condition of Sunday closing is simply in the nature of a money bribe to the Managers of the Exposition, offered by the Government at the instance of a portion of the Church faction of the United States. The purpose of the bribe is to secure enforced observance of a particular religious tenet. The Congress of the United States is certainly in a very peculiar position in the matter.”