The American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 36
IN the Gospel of St. Matthew it is related, that, as Christ sat upon the Mount oPage 1
Earlier text: IN the Gospel of St. Matthew it is related, that, as Christ sat upon the Mount oOught it to Close on Sunday?
By D. T. Jones
Those who have been watching the trend of religious thought during the last decade, and have noted the advances which the Church has been making toward the civil power, will perhaps be interested to know how the supreme religio-civil question now before the public, namely, the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday, is regarded by the leading journals and ministers of California. The Examiner, of San Francisco, in its issue of July 17 contained the following special despatch from Washington:— Matters of national import in Congress which have divided the parties appear to be thoroughly overshadowed by the World's Fair Sunday closing, combat waged between the Senate and the House. The conflict was launched last Wednesday when Senator Quay, the eminent Pennsylvania moralist, sprang an amendment to the Sunday Civil bill (in which the World's Fair appropriation is incorporated), providing that the Fair be closed tighter than wax on Sunday in all its departments.
The opposition rallied, but the Sabbatarians carried their point by the heavy majority of 45 to 11. Not even the art galleries were exempt from the rigorous operation of the new proviso. The question of closing the World's Fair on Sunday was submitted to the leading pastors of San Francisco, and elicited from them opinions as follows:— Rev. C. L. Miel, editor of the Pacific Churchman, said:— When the discussion on the Sunday opening or closing of the World's Fair began, I wrote as follows: “Shall the World's Fair be opened on Sunday or shall it not? The arguments on both sides will readily suggest themselves. The main one for the opening of the Fair is that Sunday is the only holiday of the workingmen; per contra, it is urged that Sunday has, in America, taken upon it the distinct character of a holy day, and that the proposed departure would amount to desecration. It is time the press, pulpit, and people should realize, as concerns Sunday, that recreation and desecration are distinctly different. There is a recreation which consecrates, and there is a recreation that desecrates. So far as the World's Fair is concerned, there seems to be a middle course that should recommend itself to all but the extremists of both parties, those who favor and those who do not favor the opening of the Fair on Sunday. This is simply to open the Fair on Sunday afternoon at one half the price of the usual admission. Sunday could thus be preserved as a holy day first, and a holiday as a holiday. They believe that the day is one of recreation of soul and body. They recreate the soul by public observance of prescribed religious duties. They recreate the body in whatever decent, healthful, agreeable way, they may choose. They, like the others, have a perfect right to do so. They, like the others, have no moral right to enforce their practices upon those who differ from them. This is a free country, and in nothing more free than this liberty of religious opinions and practices. To open the World's Fair on Sunday is not to compel those who do not believe in Sunday opening to enter its gates and perambulate its grounds. But to close the World's Fair on Sunday is, in no slight sense, to compel an observance of the day which a majority of our citizens do not believe in. As no one is under compulsion to go to the Fair on Sunday, so, also, no one should be under compulsion not to go. The question of attendance or non-attendance is purely a question of individual conscience. As to the question of opening or closing, I do not believe in denying to two large classes of people the privilege of attending the Fair on Sunday, because a minority, however respectable and well-intentioned, desires the gates closed on that day. Beyond this there remains the fact that to many Sunday is the only day when they can attend the Fair without a loss in wages, which they can ill afford, or not afford at all. I am now, as I have been from the first, in favor of opening the Fair on Sunday. It was in deference to a sentiment which I appreciate and do not think it just to ignore that I suggested, as a compromise, the opening of the Fair on Sunday afternoons.” The foregoing was written in July, 1890, and during the interval I have written in the same strain. I have come in for my full share of criticism—favorable, adverse, good, and ill-natured. I have followed carefully the views of men whose opinions are worthy of consideration, but as yet have seen no sufficient reason for changing my own. The question, after all, is one of Sunday observance. It is well to remember that Sunday in the United States has a civil as well as a religious character. A large class of our citizens observe the day solely from a religious standpoint. Holding rigidly to the letter of the fourth commandment, they apply every jot and tittle of it to the Christian Sunday. Their observance of Sunday is strictly and solely ecclesiastical. They have a perfect right to hold their opinions and practice them. They have, however, no moral right to compel others who do not share those opinions to act as if they did. Another and a larger class of citizens do not mark their Sundays by any religious observance. They regard and observe Sunday as a civil holiday. They, like the former class, have a perfect right to do so, provided their observance is within the law. They have, however, no moral right to compel the former to close their churches, and spend their Sunday as a civil holiday. But there is a third, and by far the larger, class of citizens who observe Sunday in both characters, religious and civil, as a holy day and as a holiday. They believe that the day is one of recreation of soul and body. They recreate the soul by public observance of prescribed religious duties. They recreate the body in whatever decent, healthful, agreeable way, they may choose. They, like the others, have a perfect right to do so. They, like the others, have no moral right to enforce their practices upon those who differ from them. This is a free country, and in nothing more free than this liberty of religious opinions and practices. To open the World's Fair on Sunday is not to compel those who do not believe in Sunday opening to enter its gates and perambulate its grounds. But to close the World's Fair on Sunday is, in no slight sense, to compel an observance of the day which a majority of our citizens do not believe in. As no one is under compulsion to go to the Fair on Sunday, so, also, no one should be under compulsion not to go. The question of attendance or non-attendance is purely a question of individual conscience. As to the question of opening or closing, I do not believe in denying to two large classes of people the privilege of attending the Fair on Sunday, because a minority, however respectable and well-intentioned, desires the gates closed on that day. Beyond this there remains the fact that to many Sunday is the only day when they can attend the Fair without a loss in wages, which they can ill afford, or not afford at all. I am now, as I have been from the first, in favor of opening the Fair on Sunday. It was in deference to a sentiment which I appreciate and do not think it just to ignore that I suggested, as a compromise, the opening of the Fair on Sunday afternoons. Rev. John E. Cottle, rector of St. Bridget's, said:— The keeping of the Exposition open on Sunday may become the occasion of the neglect of religious duties on the part of a great many. After all, six days in each week seem quite sufficient to enable people who wish to see the Exhibition to see all that they need to see. The Sabbath is a day set apart for religious reflection, and to bring the thoughts of man back to a consideration of the welfare of his soul; and God, who gives us six days of each week for business and pleasure, should have at least a seventh of the time reserved to his own special use, especially since he has ordained that Sunday belongs to us only in so far as we make a proper use of it. Rev. John Kimball, of The Pacific, the organ of Congregationalism west of the Rocky Mountains, said:— The universal opinion, both of those who are Christians and those who are merely good citizens and Americans, is that the best health and interest of the country are conserved by the observance of a rest-day, upon which all ordinary employment shall cease, and a time be given to repose and reflection, if not to religious observances. Rev. J. A. Cruzan, Pastor of the Congregational Church:— My principal objection to the opening of the World's Fair on Sunday is that the greatest thing that we have to show to the nations of the Old World is the American Sunday, with its worship and its rest from labor, for the workingman especially, as in contrast with the continental Sunday. Rev. W. W. Case, of the Central Methodist Episcopal Church:— Of course the clergy is a unit on this proposition. I do not see how any member of the profession can logically oppose the closing of the Exposition on Sunday. We are a Christian Nation, and should recognize a Christian Sabbath. Rev. J. Q. A. Henry, one of the leaders in the Baptist denomination:— The decision to close the World's Fair on Sunday is a move in the right direction, and a grand victory in the cause of good morals and religion. Rev. D. Hanson Irwin, Pastor of the Howard Street Presbyterian Church:— The Exposition should be closed on Sunday, and I am glad that a decision to that effect has been reached, though I had no doubt as to the result. An opposite course would be opposed to the best interests of religion. Rev. W. D. Williams, Pastor of the Plymouth Congregational Church:— I think clergymen are of one opinion concerning the subject of closing the World's Fair on Sunday. In the interests of labor, morals, and religion, the decision is a most desirable one. The editor of the Pacific Churchman holds sound views on the question of religious liberty, and is able to give his reasons therefor. He is in favor of opening the World's Fair on Sunday, and only suggested the compromise of closing in the forenoon and opening in the afternoon out of “deference to a sentiment” which he appreciates, and does not “think it just to ignore.” All will recognize the principle which he enunciates,—when, referring to those who conscientiously observe Sunday, he says, “They have a perfect right to hold their opinions and to practice them. They have, however, no moral right to compel others who do not share those opinions to act as if they did,”—as being sound and logical. He also expresses a truth when he says, “To open the World's Fair on Sunday is not to compel those who do not believe in Sunday opening to enter its gates and perambulate its grounds. But to close the World's Fair on Sunday is, in no slight sense, to compel an observance of the day which a majority of our citizens do not believe in.” It is gratifying to know that some men who occupy the editorial chair of the religious press, and stand in the pulpit, have the courage to express such sound sentiments on this question. The American Political System.
By Ira D. Blanchard
It was declared to be the opinion of the United States Senate, in 1829, that, “Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are always dangerous.” There exists at the present time in this country the most extensive religious combination the world ever saw, and it exists for no other purpose than to effect a political object. We are evidently entering a serious crisis in our national life. By careful study of the principles which underlie our American political system, every citizen should seek to understand what is involved in the political success of this intensely un-American and most dangerous movement. In the development of the American idea of government many futile attempts were made to formulate a complete assertion of the principle involved. Of this class is the resolution adopted by the New York provincial congress, June 24, 1775, as follows:— Resolved, That neither the parliament of Great Britain nor any other earthly legislature or tribunal ought or can of right interfere or interpose in any wise howsoever in the religious and ecclesiastical concerns of the colonies. This was too general to give protection to each individual in the colonies against any interference in his religious concerns by the government of his own colony. The Virginia declaration of rights, adopted June 12, 1776, is more to the point. In the Constitution of nearly all the States, similar assertions have been adopted. Section 16 reads as follows:— That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. In the discussion of this resolution Madison said:— The free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, is something which every man may demand as a right, not something for which he must ask as a privilege. We can more fully realize the force of286 these “self-evident truths” when we unselfishly assert the other man’s right to believe and worship as he chooses, or not to worship at all if he chooses. Freedom to do a thing necessarily implies equal freedom not to do it. It is the selfish assertion and reiteration of our own rights that leads us to forget the rights of others and try to force them to conform to our way. The words of Christ (Matt. 7:12,) “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so, to them; for this is the law and the prophets,” were his explanation to his followers, of what constitutes proper obedience to the law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” As Christ’s legal opinion this rule is binding upon all Christians, unequivocally requiring them to accord to others in all things, the same right and privileges they would wish accorded to themselves. It does more than this. It exposes the character of those who claim the name Christian, but have so little regard for this fundamental law of Christian conduct, that they seek to enforce upon others hollow formalities of their own lifeless, if not absolutely hypocritical, profession. The law of Christianity is the law of love, “For love worketh no ill to his neighbor.” And that the principle of freedom of conscience for every man, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by our Constitution is in harmony with it, is a “self-evident truth.” These principles should be maintained by Christians and all others. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”—Ira D. Blanchard, in Duluth Evening Herald. The purposes to which Sunday laws may be, and are, put, is well shown in this item from Our Country, published at Boston:— A summons has been served on William H. Mace, of Stoneham, the well-known proprietor of the refreshment saloon at the northerly end of Spot Pond, calling him into court to-morrow morning to answer to the charge of keeping an open shop on the Lord's day. An interesting story is told in connection with this case. Before Mr. Mace opened his saloon there was a contest between him and one Michael McCarthy in the matter of obtaining a lease of the land on which his building stands, it being a very desirable location. Mr. Mace secured the lease, and since then it is alleged that McCarthy has been endeavoring in one way and another to make matters unpleasant for Mace. Last Sunday Mace left his horse in front of McCarthy's house and weighted him, while he went into his own saloon, which is near by. It is said that McCarthy came out and commenced moving the horse away, whereupon Mace ordered him to let the horse alone, and some hot words followed. It is alleged that soon287 after this incident McCarthy reported to Chief of Police Houghton that Mace was keeping his place open on Sunday, and this led to the complaint and summons against Mace. Religious laws have always made an acceptable weapon for the malicious and the hypocritical against their neighbors. This will be found to be no less true now than in preceding generations. Sunday Funerals.
By J. L. Cupit
ONE would not naturally suppose that Sunday-law enthusiasts would carry their claims of Sunday sacredness so far as to seriously deny the right of a man to die on a day which would necessitate holding the funeral on Sunday; but such would seem to be the case, from the following clipping from the Uxbridge (Canada) Journal, under date of June 9, 1892:— At a meeting of the Ministerial Association of Stouffville, the following resolution was unanimously carried:— WHEREAS, There is a tendency to select the Sabbath day for funerals, and we believe such funerals to be detrimental to the proper observance of the Sabbath, and the spiritual interests of our congregations, therefore be it Resolved, That we, the Ministerial Association of Stouffville, agree not to attend or conduct funerals on the Sabbath, unless absolutely necessary on sanitary grounds; and that we request that funeral sermons be not preached on the day of interment, but at the regular service on the following Sabbath; and further request that the ministers be consulted before final arrangements are made. From the foregoing it would appear that it is a sin to attend funerals on Sunday, notwithstanding men die, and the natural order of events points to Sunday as the day of interment. Would it be less fallacious to request that men postpone their death till some other day, when the “Ministerial Association of Stouffville” could attend the funeral without remorse of conscience? It is not because it is so much of a sin to attend Sunday funerals, but to bring Sunday to the front as the “American Sabbath” that these enthusiasts are working. What is wanted is to set up the “golden image” on the “plains of Dura,” and to compel all classes to “fall down and worship” it. NATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ASSOCIATION.
Three boys have been arrested in Pittsburg for putting up a tent and selling refreshments on Sunday. They are to be prosecuted to the “full extent of the law.” The Pearl of Days reports that the American Sabbath Union has printed and sent out one hundred thousand copies of Elliott F. Shepard’s “Brief” in favor of keeping the World’s Fair closed on Sunday, which was presented at the hearings before the Congressional Committees on the World’s Fair last April. The Northern Christian Advocate says that in New Orleans the Sunday law is violated, but that “The American Confederation of Labor has entered into an alliance with the Sunday Rest League to secure its enforcement, and it is believed that the opposition must give way.” Thus one by one, through apparent self-interest, or some other deception, different organizations are led into this great delusion. The Philadelphia Record has this editorial on the subject of Congress and the Sunday closing of the World's Fair:— Apart from the immediate question of closing the World's Fair on Sunday there can be no mistaking the ulterior object of this Sabbatarian crusade. Should it prove successful, the reaction against personal liberty and social progress will not cease until every street-car shall have been stopped, and every library, academy of arts, and museum, closed on Sunday. The Sabbatarians have not hesitated to avow that their purpose is to re-establish the puritanical policy of the seventeenth century. In the debate on the Quay amendment Senator Frye, of Maine, passed a eulogy on the puritanical Sabbath, and fervently expressed a hope of its speedy restoration in this country. Other senators, in their Sabbatarian zeal, gave utterance to like views. This is the real meaning of bigotry's persistent attack upon the Columbian Exposition. It seems that in North Carolina indulgence in gymnastic exercises is a desecration of Sunday. The pugilist James Corbett, while on his way through North Carolina to fight with John L. Sullivan at New Orleans, was so forgetful of the religious duty of complete Sunday rest required by the municipal regulations of the town of Charlotte, N. C., as to take, while stopping off there on Sunday, some modification of his customary daily physical exercise. A posse of police was detailed to arrest him, and he was obliged to leave his special car on the track under the surveillance of the Charlotte police, and take another train to escape the consequences of his failure to observe the requirements of Carolina religion. Those who intend to stop over Sunday in the village of Charlotte hereafter would do well to telegraph in advance for instructions, unless they are in search of regular employment in the chain-gang or are composed of the stuff of which martyrs are made. COMMISSIONER DOUGLASS, of Washington, D. C., received recently an application from a retail grocer requesting permission to keep his store open on Sundays, as his stock was perishable, and to close his store on that day would cause him great loss. A subordinate officer to whom the matter was referred, stated in his indorsement on the papers that there is no law to keep the store closed on Sunday, and recommended that he be allowed to keep open, as requested. Commissioner Douglass, however, wrote the following on the subject:— “The letter asking permission to keep a grocery-store open on Sunday for the sale of ‘perishable’ articles, such as meats, etc., was duly received, and referred to the Police Department. It has been returned, with a favorable recommendation by Lieut. Kelley. The lieutenant says that there is no law to prevent the doing so. I am not so sure there is no law to prevent this. In the first place, the Decalogue seems to forbid it. In the second place, by early and late common law decisions in England, Christianity has been held to be a part of the common law of that country.” The Pittsburg preachers and their “Law and Order” detectives continue to make life uncomfortable for the people of Pittsburg on Sunday. The Pittsburg Dispatch notes the following incident:— The Law and Order Society’s movement against the pernicious selling of milk, etc., after 12 o’clock Saturday night is occasioning a great deal of criticism. Alderman Role says there are six or seven informations being prepared by the society for the violation of the law, but thinks the charges against the dealers are for selling ice-cream and cigars. He stated that any one brought up before him charged with selling milk, ice, or bread, on Sunday, would be discharged. He considers the application of the law to the selling of a glass of milk as stretching things too far. A gentleman who had just gotten off a train went around the city Sunday morning about 1 o’clock in search of something to quench a thirst which he had been cultivating for many miles. He first tried the saloons, but found none open. Next he plead with the drug-store clerk even for a glass of vichy, but to no avail. He became desperate at last, and went into a Smithfield restaurant and meekly asked for a glass of milk. He nearly fell from his seat when the waiter informed him it was against the law to sell milk on Sunday without being served with a full meal. He sat meditating for a while, then, with a great deal of reluctance, said, “Can you give me a glass of water without violating the law?” After forcing the liquid down his throat he went out muttering to himself, in not very complimentary language, about the kind of a place he had fallen into. Such facts as these show conclusively that the more those who seek the enforcement of Sunday laws gain the more they will demand. The Pearl of Days is not satisfied with the multiplicity of organizations now existing for the furtherance of enforced Sunday observance, but advocates the establishing of still another. It says:—. The need of a national society, thoroughly organized and generously supported, to meet the assaults upon the Sabbath originating in high places, is the deep conviction of very many. The sacred day will never be fully saved to us so long as we think its foes are only to be found in the saloon, in alliance with the grosser forms of Sabbath desecration. The consciences of the intelligent masses must be appealed to. There must be such a moral atmosphere created as will favor discussion of the great Sabbath principles taught in the Bible. In other words, there must be greater attention given to finding out what God's will is concerning the fourth commandment. If this new organization would really give itself to finding out what God's will is concerning the fourth commandment the result of the investigation would astonish the author of this paragraph. “And, in the third, the supreme courts of this country have always held from the first that when the first settlers from the mother country came to America they brought the ‘common law’ with them as a vital part of their birthright of principles of government and social order. It will not be disputed that the Decalogue is a prominent plank in the Christian platform. I have often thought that an indictment might be framed under this idea. “If not, it certainly has force enough, in my mind, to induce a refusal of such a request, and leave the party to stand on his rights in the matter as the courts may determine. For these reasons, with others not now mentioned, but generally understood or adopted, I must vote to refuse the request. Besides, all the articles called perishable can be preserved by the use of an ice-box.”—Pearl of Days. SACRED CHRONOLOGY.
By Sylvester Bliss
This work treats of the Elements of Chronology, the different systems, and the various eras, and gives the chronology of the principal events recorded in sacred history from the creation, till the death of St. John. It also contains a vindication of the numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. As an aid to investigation it is invaluable. The book has been thoroughly revised, and an entire chapter added, on the This chapter is an exposition of the tenth chapter of Genesis, and gives an outline of the beginning of history, and No student of history can well be without this book. 300 pages, cloth binding, with side stamp, $1.00. PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY. 12th & Castro Streets,
OAKLAND, CAL.
43 Bond Street,
NEW YORK. WITH MANY IMPORTANT ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Designed to be a complete guide in regard to the pronunciation and signification of Scriptural names; THE SOLUTION OF DIFFICULTIES
respecting the interpretation, authority, and harmony of the Old and New Testaments; the history and description of Biblical customs, events, places, persons, animals, plants, minerals, and other things concerning which information is needed by an intelligent and thorough student of the Holy Scriptures, and of the books of the Apocrypha. Over 1,200 royal 8vo. pages. Cloth, $5.00; library, $6.00. PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY, 12TH & CASTRO STREETS, 43 BOND STREET,
OAKLAND, CAL. NEW YORK, Songs of Freedom
By F. E. Belden
CONTAINING . . . . . .
60 New Hymns,
50 New Songs,
40 Old Favorites,
10 National Songs. THE ORIGINAL SONGS were written by Danks, Butterfield, Barnes, Emerson, Herbert, Hakes, Towne, Russell, Ogden, Tenney, Davis, Sweney, Belden, and others. Selected Musical Compositions by Haydn, Mendelssohn, Verdi, Sullivan, Groos, Wilhelm, Mason, Claribel, etc. THE ORIGINAL HYMNS were written by D. W. McCourt, Rev. Dwight Williams, Mrs. L. B. Price, M. B. Duffie, T. R. Williamson, Mrs. L. D. A. Stuttle, John Talman, Fannie Bolton, Emma L. Pardon, Albion F. Ballenger, Mary L. LaForge, Elizabeth Rosser, J. J. Ellyson, Victoria A. Buck, R. F. Cottrell, Wm. Brickey, S. B. Whitney, F. E. Belden, etc. Selected Patriotic Hymns by Bryant, Whittier, Dwight, Drake, Joaquin Miller, Felicia Hemans, Theodore Tilton, Rev. Henry Alford, Rev. Leonard Bacon, etc. 120 pages, embracing a large number of songs in the interests of
Religious Liberty,
Soldier's Reunions,
Independence Day,
Memorial Day,
Washington's Birthday, Etc., Arranged as Solos, Duets, Trios, Quartets for both Male and Female Voices, Choruses for both Male and Mixed Voices, Patriotic Songs for Children, etc. The principal object of the book is to oppose efforts tending toward a union of Church and State. PRICES, Postpaid:
Heavy Manila Covers, cloth joints, 35 Cents.
Strong, Flexible Cloth, cloth joints, 50 Cents. Address, PACIFIC PRESS PUB. CO., 43 Bond St., New York City. PURE CRACKERS AND BISCUITS,
and Cereal Coffee MANUFACTURED BY THE BATTLE CREEK BAKERY COMPANY We manufacture a choice line of these goods, entirely free from lard and all adulterations, at the following prices:— “A” Fruit Biscuits, white flour, sweetened, per lb. 15c
“B” “ “ whole wheat flour, “ “ “ 15c
Fruit Crackers, not sweetened, “ “ “ 15c
Lemon Cream Biscuits, “ “ “ “ 12c
Graham “ “ “ “ “ 12c
Oat Meal “ “ “ “ “ 12c
“A” Graham Crackers, slightly sweetened “ “ 10c
“B” “ “ not sweetened “ “ 10c
“A” Oat Meal “ slightly sweetened “ “ 10c
“B” “ “ not sweetened “ “ 10c
Whole Wheat Crackers, “ “ 10c
White “ very palatable, “ “ 10c
Carbon “ “ “ “ 15c
Gluten “ “ “ “ 30c
Cereola, a prepared grain food, in bulk, “ “ 10c
Pure Gluten “ “ 40c
Wheat “ “ 20c
Cereal Coffee, prepared from grains only, a very choice and healthful drink, in one and a half lb. packages (Once used, never again refused), 25c These goods are put up in boxes, at the following prices:— Fruit Biscuits, A and B, 31 lbs. per box, $4.00
Lemon Cream Biscuits, 26 “ “ “ 2.60
Graham “ 26 “ “ “ 2.60
Oat Meal 30 “ “ “ 3.00
Any of the above Crackers, quoted at 10 cents per lb., 38 lbs. per box, 3.00
Cereola, in cases of 50 packages, one and a quarter lbs. each, 6.00
Cereal Coffee, 25 packages, 5.00 Cereola and Gluten are prepared foods, thoroughly cooked and ready for use by the addition of some fluid, as milk and cream, fruit juice or water, as best agrees with the individual. Cereola is a universal Health Food, and is calculated for use both in sickness and health. It is the same as formerly advertised under the name Granola. Goods, to the value of eight dollars, will be sent on the receipt of six dollars, being 25 per cent. discount. In ordering, please remember that the rate of freight on 25 lbs. will be the same as on 100 lbs. Remit by Bank Draft, Money Order, Express Order, or Postal Note. No private checks accepted. Write us for special rates on large lots. We the undersigned, residents of Battle Creek, Mich., take pleasure in stating that Mr. Joseph Smith, manager of the Health Food Department of the Battle Creek Bakery Co., has resided in Battle Creek for nearly 20 years, and is a competent and responsible man, and of long experience in his line of business, and one whose goods we can heartily recommend to the public. URIAH SMITH, Editor Review and Herald.
HON. W. C. GAGE, Ex-Mayor.
J. B. KRUG, of Krug's Business College.
THOMAS H. BRIGGS, M. D.
HON. GEORGE WILLARD, Pub. Journal.
S. S. FRENCH, M. D.
R. T. KINGMAN, Vice-President City Bank.
M. RORABACHER, M. D.
HON. W. H. MASON, postmaster.
HON. J. W. BAILEY, Ex-Mayor.
T. E. SANDS, M. D. Address, BATTLE CREEK BAKERY CO., Battle Creek, Mich. The Cottage Pulpit, of Nashville, Tenn., publishes this outspoken expression of noble and worthy feeling in reference to the fines and imprisonment suffered by Christian citizens of Tennessee under the State Sunday laws:— In regard to the persecution of Seventh-day Adventists in Henry County, and elsewhere in this State, we have this further suggestion to offer: That if the intelligent Christians belonging to the communities where these men have been arrested would step forward and refund fines that an ignorant or prejudiced justice of the peace or judge has imposed upon them, under mistaken zeal for the maintenance of the State’s laws, they would honor Christ and his cause by it, and relieve themselves and the church in Tennessee of the appearance of complicity and approval of such disgraceful proceedings. Or, perhaps better still, to show the world that America’s boasted heritage of religious liberty is not all a sham and a fraud and a mockery here at the core of the Nation,—here in the old “Volunteer State,” as her citizens so proudly call her, because of her readiness to defend the national honor when the frontier was invaded, why not, you Christian men of honesty and intellect, exert your influence upon the governor of the State and have him remit the fines, as we presume he has the power to do, and thus cleanse the hands of our good commonwealth of the uncleanness, and her fair name of the stigma, of being thought a reviver of the old inquisitorial fires of persecution under color of law. This account of an interview between a Presbyterian clergyman of Stillwater, Minn., and Archbishop Ireland on the public school question is from the New York Herald:— The Archbishop charged the public schools with being godless, and professed a desire to introduce religious elements into them. I suggested that when I went to school we recited the Lord’s prayer and read from the Scriptures, and asked how they were driven out. He confessed that it was largely owing to Catholic protests. I again suggested that committees of all religious denominations meet and formulate a ritual to be used as a text book, containing religious instructions that would not be objectionable to any sect and that no persons of good morals could object to. He objected on the ground that I would not confess to the Catholic idea, admitting that what Catholics wanted was the teaching of the Catholic religion in the schools. He cited an instance in which the State legislated in a matter of religion, requiring the observance of the Sabbath, and remarked that the State didn’t do that for the sake of religion, but to require the observance of Sunday as a day of rest. He then said: “Why not legislate immediately in that way in the matter of the public schools?” Claiming that by such a plan the State would immediately arrange religion, I objected to the Sabbath as not being a parallel, the Sabbath being common to both Catholics and Protestants, but that the Catholic religion which he was advancing in his plans was not common to both Catholics and Protestants. The Archbishop frankly admitted that the Protestant’s conscience had good reason to be offended when Sisters of Charity were introduced into the Central Public School buildings and placed over Protestant children. I asked if I might infer from that that the garb of the Sisters of Charity had a teaching force. This he practically admitted. The Archbishop is an astute and plausible talker; but, as I said to him, his plan involves the impossible condition of putting religious instruction by the State in schools, which is contrary to the laws and conditions of the State. I suggested that this plan was one that could stand only on its merits, and in the eye of the law this religious element robbed it of all merit. He seemed confident that some compromise would be arrived at by which the difficulties would be met. I gained from him the information that his efforts are by no means considered at an end. It will be noticed that in antagonizing the Roman Catholic prelate it was necessary for this Presbyterian to acknowledge the impropriety and impossibility of the State teaching religion in the public schools, although this position directly crossed the suggestion which he had previously made as to the formulating of “a ritual to be used as a text book, containing religious instructions that would not be objectionable to any sect.” BUT why should observers of the seventh day, or of any day other than Sunday be permitted to work on Sunday only provided they disturb no one any more than observers of Sunday should be permitted to work on Saturday only provided they disturb no one? Why should any more protection be thrown around the Sunday keeper than around the man who keeps another day? And if in order for one to rest all must rest at the same time, and if it is right and just to require the seventh day observer to rest on Sunday so that he shall not disturb the Sunday keeper, why should not the Sunday keeper be required to rest on Saturday so that he shall not disturb those who observe the seventh day? Two centuries ago the law of Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts, required all parents to have their children baptized. There was certainly in itself no moral wrong in putting a few drops of water on the head of an infant; and it could do the child no harm. But the Baptists refused obedience to the law because they could not conscientiously do that which the law required. They did not so understand baptism, and in their view to sprinkle infants and call it baptism, or to do it as a religious ceremony, or to acknowledge faith in it by doing it, when they had no such faith, would have been wicked. They therefore suffered fines, imprisonment, banishment, and even death rather than yield their consciences into the keeping of the State. And who will say that they did not do right? Who does not honor them for their fidelity to principle, and to God? Not one; all honor those faithful men as champions of soul-liberty. Yet, according to judicial decisions even the seemingly ample guarantee of liberty of conscience in the Constitution of Tennessee does not leave the dissenter from the prevailing religion free to disregard laws made in aid of the religion of other sects. And so in that State, as in some other States, the observers of the seventh day, though permitted to observe that day, are required to keep Sunday also, an institution which they look upon just as the Baptists did upon infant baptism. How much then is Tennessee in advance of Massachusetts two centuries ago? THE Youth's Companion thinks in order to keep the school out of politics, “the only possible rule is to make the school a place of instruction in the funda-mentals of knowledge, in morality, and in religion so far as all are agreed. Schools so constituted and no others, should be supported by the public taxes.” A fine conception, truly, of what a public school should be. But where can the religion be found upon which “all are agreed?” Has anybody ever discovered such a religion? and if anybody were to discover it would it be worth teaching to anybody in any place? THE revivalist Mills recently visited San Francisco, and drew such crowds that no hall or other public building in the city could accommodate them. The Examiner of that city, in its issue of August 20, said:— Business will be practically suspended in this city to-day, for the men of trade have agreed to close their stores that they and their clerks may listen to the message that Mills, the revivalist, brings. . . . Here is a man free from what are called “sensational methods” who can find no hall large enough for his audiences, and can call the men of the world from their avocations to hear him. He does not have to complain of the counter attractions of the ball game, the picnic and the Sunday newspaper. He has learned the secret of interesting the world in his message, and the world is willing to take time from its own devices to listen to him.
Is not this an unkind thrust at those ministers who want everything else closed on Sunday in order that their churches may be filled?