The American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 29
THE German Emperor is reported as having “frankly admitted that governments cannPage 1
THE German Emperor is reported as having “frankly admitted that governments cannot accomplish much unless organized Christianity comes to their aid.” In view of this conclusion he writes an autograph letter to the Pope inviting his co-operation in the adjustment of social questions in the present crisis in continental labor agitation, etc. The correspondent who reports this declares, “There is no doubt that a great national movement is on foot, to give the Pope a leading part in an effort to deal with universal labor troubles. His holiness recognizes this as a great opportunity for the church to put itself at the head of the worldwide reform demanded by organized labor. He holds that the nation must adopt the principles of Christianity, and that the church is the only power competent to meet the issues involved in the social and industrial movement.” How different is this from the “great national movement on foot” in this country? The two are born of the same mother; in fact they are twins. Another Scheme to Establish a National Religion.
By A. T. J.
MENTION has before been made of the introduction of a bill in the United States Senate, by Senator Edmunds, providing for the establishment of a national university. That such a bill had been introduced was all we knew about it particularly, until a few days ago, when by sending to the capitol we received a copy of it. Like many other of these things that are being carried on in Congress, when read by title it does not appear to many as a very bad thing; yet even though all that this bill intends, or all that it means, were suggested in the title, it would still be a very serious question whether a national university would be conducive to the best interests of education in the United States. It would be impossible to keep it free from political preferences and intrigue. But this is not the worst feature of the bill, nor is it the material one. The bill not only provides for the establishment of a national university, but it also provides for the establishment of the Christian religion in that university. The bill was introduced May 14, 1890, and is entitled, “A Bill to Establish the University of the United States.” Section 1 says:— Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That there shall be, and hereby is, established, a corporation in the city of Washington to be known as The University of the United States. Section 2 provides a Board of Regents that is to be composed of the President and the cabinet of the United States, with the Chief Justice, and also twelve citizens of the United States to be appointed by a concurrent resolution of the two houses; and when any vacancy occurs in the office of any regent thus appointed, it is to be filled likewise by the concurrent resolution of the two houses. This provision for the appointment of the twelve citizens of the United States to this place will open the way for the practice of all the political wire-pulling, lobbying, and “influence” that pertain to the United States appointments generally. Section 3 provides that this university shall institute and carry on a course of education and research in all branches of learning and investigation that shall, in the opinion of the Board of Regents, from time to time, be most conducive to the advancement and to the increase and development of knowledge, and such as the usual course of education in schools, colleges, and universities in the United States does not furnish the best means and facilities for doing. Section 7 appropriates a sum not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars to procure the necessary grounds, and to erect the necessary buildings. Section 8 provides five million dollars of the public money as the principal of a perpetual fund from the interest of which, at four per cent., the necessary funds are to be taken to carry on the work of the university, and no more than the amount of such income shall be used, for the purposes mentioned in the bill. Section 9 provides that the Board of Regents may receive gifts and donations in aid of any of the objects proposed in the bill. In view of the numerous demands for help to farmers, mechanics, laboring men, and almost every class, that are now being made upon the United States, the prospect does not look very brilliant that the regents of this university will be very speedily overwhelmed with226donations. Besides this, to find a person who is ready to give money to the United States would be a thing about as new, under the sun, as is this idea that has suggested it. All things mentioned, or required in all these sections, are of little importance, however, compared with the provisions of Section 10, which are as follows:— Section 10. That no special sectarian belief or doctrine shall be taught or promoted in said University, but this prohibition shall not be deemed to exclude the study and consideration of Christian theology. This section provides at once for the national establishment of the Christian religion. The passage of such a bill by Congress would be the recognition of Christianity as a proper belief and doctrine, and as the only form of theology, belief, or doctrine, worthy of study and consideration, from a national point of view, which would be at once a national recognition of Christianity; and the national recognition of Christianity, and the teaching of it at national expense and by national authority, would be but the establishment of Christianity as a national religion. Theology is the science which teaches about God. But this declares that the theology to be taught in this university shall be Christian theology. It is only the science of the Christians’ God that shall be taught there. It is only the wisdom concerning the Christians’ God that is to be studied and considered there. Therefore this section does as clearly and distinctly provide for the establishment of Christianity, its beliefs, its doctrines, and its views of God as anything can do. It just as clearly and distinctly provides for the establishment of Christianity as the national religion, as it would be possible to do by an act of Congress. More than this, the passage of this section as it reads would be a distinct declaration by the national Legislature that nothing that is Christian is sectarian. “No special sectarian belief or doctrine shall be taught or promoted,” but this is not to exclude the teaching of “Christian theology.” This is but a declaration that the Christian views concerning God, or the beliefs in him, and the doctrines concerning him, are not sectarian. It will be seen at once that this plays directly into the hands of the National League for the Protection of American Institutions, as shown in last week’s SENTINEL, which demands an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbidding any State to give any public money to any institution under sectarian or ecclesiastical control, which amendment would lay upon the Supreme Court of the United States the necessity of deciding the question of what is sectarian, and then they intend to have the Supreme Court decide that Christianity and its theology are not sectarian. Section 11 declares that no person otherwise eligible under the act shall be excluded from the privileges of the university on account of race, color, citizenship, or religious belief. But Section 12, in connection with Section 10, is important. It says:— Section 12. That Congress shall have power at all times, according to its judgment for the public good, to amend or repeal this act, and it shall have the power by any committee of either house of Congress appointed for that purpose, to visit and inquire into, and report upon all the operations of the corporation established by this act. This gives power to Congress at any time to inquire into and report upon the merit of the Christian theology that is studied or considered there. This will of necessity make Christian theology an issue in every Congressional election held under the Government. As Congress is here given the power to amend or repeal this act the way will be open for that infidelity which these “unsectarian Christians” declare to be so dangerous, to secure sufficient influence in Congress to repeal, at the very least, that part of the act which appropriates the money of all the people to the study and consideration of the religious views of only a small part of the people. This would bring on at once a contest between that which passes for Christianity and what is held to be infidelity. Nor would this be all, nor yet would it be the worst thing that would come. It would at once become the special interest of Roman Catholicism on one hand, and of Protestantism on the other, not only to obtain the controlling power in Congress, but to obtain the presidency and the cabinet, so as to make certain which of these forms of “Christian theology” should be taught in the university. Thus to say the very least there would be in every congressional election and in every presidential election a triangular political strife on the question of Christian theology. Nor would this strife be confined only to the congressional or presidential elections. These would be only the occasion for a popular struggle throughout the whole Union, while between times the contest of clubs and cliques, wire-pullers and schemers, generally, would go steadily on, so that the religio-political strife would never cease, and the scenes of confusion and turmoil and bitter contention into which the Nation would thus be plunged, have never yet been seen in this country, and can be conceived of only by those who have the most intimate knowledge of the history of the Papacy from the fourth to the tenth century. It may be said that even if such a bill as this were passed by Congress it would at once be declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. But that is not by any means certain. That it ought to be declared unconstitutional is very certain, but that it would be, is another question entirely. Besides this, Senator Edmunds, the author of the bill, is said to be one of the best, if not the best of constitutional lawyers, not only in the United States Senate, but in the whole country. True, it does not follow that this fact would necessarily have any influence with the Supreme Court, yet, when a man with such a reputation as a constitutional lawyer, would deliberately frame and offer such a bill, it might be that a sufficient number of the judges on the Supreme Bench would view the constitutionality of the act as Mr. Edmunds does. But whether the act would be declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional or not, it is not the place of the American people to let the matter go without a protest, and depend upon such an issue as that. That is too much of a risk to run. Now is the time for the people to make their voices heard; now is the time for every man who loves Christianity, or who regards the rights of men, or who desires civil peace rather than religio-political strife and commotion, or who wants to see liberty perpetuated rather than a most wicked despotism established, —now is the time for all such to make their voices heard in such a continual stream of remonstrances pouring upon Congress as will check all such attempts as appears in this university bill. Nor should the matter stop with sending remonstrances to Congress; let public opinion be so aroused and instructed that there shall be sent to Congress only such men as have regard for the rights of the people and respect for the United States Constitution. This makes no fewer than four measures pending in Congress, any one of which tends directly to the establishment of a national religion. These are the Breckinridge Sunday Bill in the House of Representatives; the Blair Sunday Bill in the Senate; the Blair Educational Amendment; and this University Bill, with the Blair Educational Bill as a feeder to both of the last two. Take all of these, and the National League for the Protection of American Institutions, with its deceptive scheme; the National Reform Association, with its avowed purpose; the American Sabbath Association, with all its crafty tricks; and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union as a feeder to all these—it seems to us that it is time the American people were opening their eyes. The University Bill was read twice as usual, and referred to a special committee composed of Senators Edmunds, Sherman, Ingalls, Blair, Dolph, Harris, Butler, Gibson, and Barbour. A. T. J. In a letter to the Rocky Mountain News, Ellis Meredith says: “The Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts preached three times on Sunday last, at various churches in our city, each discourse being on the observance of the Sabbath. This trio of sermons brings irresistibly to mind, the saying of the old Scotch bishop, Lauderdale: ‘It’s awfu’ wonderfu’ tae me, hoo some folk tak’ it upo’ theirsel’s tae explain things tae the Almighty.’” THE religious education of the children of the State cannot be entrusted to the State. Why? Because the State has no religion, and cannot have. Were the State to get religion then we would have a State religion, and that would be un-American. If the State should join the Church then we would have a State Church, and that would not be republican. The State is entirely secular and cannot teach religion.—Rev. T. D. Peake. SERVIA has a law requiring all shops and places of business to be closed not only on Sunday, but on all the holy days of the church as well. each year report to Congress a full and complete statement of its progress and operations, with an account of all moneys expended in the course of its operations. SEC. 6. That the said Board of Regents shall have, and are hereby granted, authority to obtain the necessary grounds and provide for the necessary buildings and conveniences required for the purposes of this act, and to fix the compensation and allowance of all officers, professors, fellows, and scholars authorized by this act to be by them provided for, and to provide for all incidental expenses arising from the execution of this act; all of which expenses shall be reported to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury and passed upon according to the usual course of accounts for the public service, but no such expense shall exceed the allowance in gross provided for in this act. SEC. 7. That the sum of not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars is hereby appropriated, for the expenses of the procurement of the necessary grounds and the erection of the necessary buildings contemplated in this act. SEC. 8. That the sum of five million dollars of money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, is hereby permanently set apart in the Treasury of the United States as the principal of a perpetual fund, the necessary part of the income of which, and no more than such income, may be annually used for the purposes in this act mentioned. The said sum so set apart shall bear interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum, out of which four per cent. per annum all the expenses of said University, except the expenses provided for in the special appropriation for the grounds and buildings herein before mentioned, shall be paid. SEC. 9. That the said Board of Regents may receive gifts and donations in aid of any of the objects in this act mentioned, and in such case they shall invest or otherwise deal with the same according to the will of the donor in each case. SEC. 10. That no special sectarian belief or doctrine shall be taught or promoted in said University, but this prohibition shall not be deemed to exclude the study and consideration of Christian theology. SEC. 11. That no person otherwise eligible according to the provisions of this act shall be excluded from the benefits thereof on account of race, color, citizenship, or religious belief. SEC. 12. That Congress shall have power at all times, according to its judgment for the public good, to amend or repeal this act, and it shall have the power by any committee of either house of Congress appointed for that purpose, to visit and inquire into, and report upon all the operations of the corporation established by this act. Edmunds. Harris.
Sherman. Dolph.
Ingalls. Butler.
Blair. Gibson.
Barbour. JUDGE McSHERRY, of Frederick, Maryland, has filed an opinion declaring that “baseball playing on Sunday by men who are under contract for the season at stated salaries, no one being admitted to witness the games except those who pay, can be construed as nothing else than work, and therefore comes within the purview of the prohibitory statute.” Under this view, Sunday-baseball prosecutions will become a precedent for arrest and prosecution for the simplest work on Sunday, and a rigid enforcement of the Sunday law will be gradually inaugurated. The Sunday Association of Maryland has published its determination to break up Sunday ball playing in Maryland, and this opinion from Judge McSherry is one mesh in the net which they are weaving around the Sunday-baseball-players. Previous to the arrests upon which the above opinion was rendered, State Attorney Monroe wrote the sheriff of Anne Arundel County, as follows: “It is in your power alone to have this matter [Sunday ball] settled, by arresting the players as soon as they have finished one inning, and by repeating the arrests as often as they repeat the violations. You must take the responsibility of a failure to bring the question to a settlement as speedily as possible, and I think I have pointed out the only way in which it can be done.” The Source of Civil Power.
By C. P. B.
THAT civil government is ordained of God is plainly taught in the Scriptures of truth; but that this is so in the sense contended for by National Reformers, namely, that governments are endowed with extraordinary rights and powers, rights and powers which do not grow out of the very conditions under which governments exist, which do not primarily belong to the people, but which come directly and specially to the government from God, is sustained neither by the testimony of inspiration, nor by the nature of man and the conditions under which he exists. John Locke, the most profound moral philosopher of any age, shows plainly and incontrovertibly in his treatise on “Civil Government,” that every power which justly belongs to the State belongs first of all to the individual, and comes to the State from the individual. “God,” he says, “having made man such a creature, that, in his own judgment, it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive him into society.” And it may properly be observed that in doing this, God ordained civil government as well as every other relation that grows out of the conditions under which man exists. “The first society,” says Mr. Locke, “was between man and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents and children; to which, in time, that between master and servant came to be added; and although all these might, and commonly did meet together, and make up but one family, wherein the master or mistress of it had some sort of rule proper to a family; each of these, or all together, came short of political society. . . . Conjugal society is made by voluntary compact between man and woman. It draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too. . . . But the husband and wife, though228they have but one concern, yet having different understandings, will unavoidably sometimes have different wills too; it therefore being necessary that the last determination, i. e. the rule, should be placed somewhere; it naturally falls to the man’s share, as the abler and stronger. But this reaching but to the things of their common interest and property, leaves the wife in full and free possession of what by contract [or by nature] is her peculiar right, and gives the husband no more power over her life than she has over his.” Again, on this very point, Mr. Locke remarks, that the power of the husband over the wife is so far from being absolute that she “has in many cases a liberty to separate from him; where natural right or their contract allows it.” We do not understand by this that Mr. Locke denies that marriage is a divine institution, but that he asserts that it is entered into by agreement, and that the just powers of the husband are derived from the consent of the wife, which consent, together with compliance with whatever forms may be required by civil society, constitutes her his wife, and that the wife is under obligation to the husband only in that which natural right or their contract allows. The same he shows is true in civil society. He says: “Men being by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one with another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties.” But that men will and must do this is made certain by the very fact that they are created social beings with equal rights; it follows, therefore, that in creating them thus and associating them together, God ordained that they should thus organize, therefore “the powers that be,” the civil powers, “are ordained of God.” This view of the matter preserves the perfect harmony which exists between the teaching of the Scriptures on one hand, and the nature of man and the facts of history on the other; while the National Reform theory arrays the Bible against facts as we know them to exist, and makes the Creator responsible for a great deal of very bad and tyrannical government. C. P. B. To establish the University of the United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled: That there shall be, and hereby is, established a corporation in the city of Washington to be known as the University of the United States. SECTION 2. That the corporation shall consist of and be governed by a Board of Regents, composed of the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, the Attorney-General, the Secretary of the Navy, the Postmaster-General, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief Justice of the United States, and twelve citizens of the United States, no two of whom shall be residents of the same State, who shall be appointed by a concurrent resolution of the two houses of Congress. Any vacancy occurring in the office of any regent appointed by the two houses of Congress shall be filled by a concurrent resolution of the two houses. The twelve citizens so appointed regents shall as soon as may be, after their appointment, be divided by the Board of Regents into three classes, of four each. The members of the first class shall hold office for three years, the members of the second class, so divided, shall hold office for six years, and the members of the third class, so divided, shall hold office for nine years; and when a new appointment is needful for the continuation of each of the classes, it shall be made for three years; and if a vacancy occur in any of the classes, it shall be filled by appointment for the remainder of the term only, in respect of which the vacancy exists. SEC. 3. That the said Board of Regents shall have a common seal and have perpetual succession, and be entitled to the rights and privileges of a public literary corporation. The University hereby established shall institute and carry on a course of education and research in all branches of learning and investigation that shall, in the opinion of the Board of Regents, from time to time, be most conducive to the advancement and to the increase and development of knowledge, and such as the usual course of education in the schools, colleges, and universities in the United States does not furnish the best means and facilities for doing. To the ends aforementioned the said Board of Regents may establish executive offices, and appoint officers of said corporation, and establish and support such professorships, fellowships, scholarships and courses of instruction, study and investigation, and research as shall to them seem meet; and to these ends they may, from time to time, make such rules, regulations, ordinances, and orders as to them shall seem meet, so that the same be consistent with the provisions of this act. SEC. 4. That the said Board of Regents shall hold their first meeting at Washington, in the District of Columbia, on such day as the President of the United States shall designate, on notice be given by him of the time and place of such meeting. SEC. 5. That the said Board of Regents shall in The Oakland Morning Times, one of the best and cleanest dailies published in California, has this to say about the Sunday-law contest in that State:— At a recent ministers’ meeting in San Diego, Rev. Dr. Thompson, a representative of the American Sabbath Union in this State, outlined the proposed Sunday-law campaign this fall as follows: “First, labor to secure recognition by one or both of the great political parties by Sunday-law planks in their platforms; and, second, in case of failure to effect the point in this way, work upon the individual candidates for the Legislature. Interview the candidate of one party, and, if possible, procure his private pledge to support a Sunday law. Say, ‘your party is not committed either way; you are at perfect liberty to do as you please; your position need not be known during the campaign. Just privately pledge yourself to us, and we will throw our weight in the balance in your favor.’” In this campaign, he added, the church people must be united and agree to vote for the candidates who would give this pledge. If one candidate would not give it then go to another. The State is under great obligation to Dr. Thompson for thus showing the hand of the Sunday-law tacticians. “Forewarned is forearmed.” Candidates of a character to secretly barter principles for votes must be avoided. Neither of the great parties, we may presume, will be induced to adopt a Sunday-law plank. The Democratic party has a record on this point to maintain, and it will doubtless prove true to it. The Republican party has had an experience with Sunday-law planks which it will probably not be in a hurry to duplicate. So the second or secret plan of operations, with individual candidates, will be fallen back upon, without doubt. But let purchasable candidates, if such there should be—and some such there are sure to be—remember that though their purchasers may contract to give them the solid church vote for a Sunday law, they never will be able to “deliver the goods.” We have too high an opinion of many of our church people to believe for a moment that they will be a party to any such underhanded transactions, or allow their suffrages to be bartered in this secret way. Some will; but, unless we are greatly mistaken, not the majority, or even those who would be glad to have a Sunday law, if it could be so obtained squarely, and be so sustained by public opinion as to prove effective. But they very well know that if it be not so obtained and supported it would be, if enacted, a dead-letter law, and so, worse than none. They observe the day religiously themselves and would like to see others observe it religiously. At the same time, they are sensible that it is as difficult to enforce devotion as to command affection. They have seen also the unjust and oppressive manner in which the observance of Sunday is being enforced in other States, and they have too much of the Christian spirit, of doing to others as you would be done by, to desire to see similar wrongs made possible here. And more than all, they are of too open, frank, and honest a nature to be willing to give even a tacit consent to anything which savors of concealment and bribery. On the whole, then, we have little fear of the success of these secret Sunday-law tactics. We now predict their complete and ignominious failure. How It Looks From Australia
“The Bible Echo, a religious paper published in Melbourne, Australia, has this to say about the efforts now making to secure religious legislation in this country, and also of a similar movement in the Australian Colonies:— The Constitution of the United States guarantees to all its citizens freedom in matters pertaining to the conscience; and declares that Congress shall make no laws for the establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof. And in laying the foundation of the Government, by special effort all allusions to matters of religious belief were omitted. The law undertook only to control in matters which were purely civil and national, not in those which were ecclesiastical or religious. But of late years there has been on the part of many religionists a feeling of discontent at this state of things, and a movement has been inaugurated to obtain an amendment to the Constitution such as will permit the enactment of certain laws concerning Scriptural education, Sunday observance, etc. This movement is opposed by a large class of citizens, and the contest waxes warm. A similar contest is probably before the people of these Colonies, as demands for stricter Sunday laws and for Scriptural education in the public schools are already being actively urged. We stand on the side of good law and order. We believe in the sanctity of the Sabbath day and in the importance of the religious training of children; but we are wholly opposed to the State becoming an agent for enforcing and prescribing either. Parents are responsible to God rather than to the law for the religious influences which are exerted over their children. The sacred duties which we owe to God should be taught by faithful fathers and mothers, rather than perhaps ungodly and infidel teachers in the humdrum mechanical method of the schoolroom, where they will soon become degraded and commonplace. If perchance a parent does229not wish to have his children brought under such instruction, it should not be forced upon him. Such a course cannot result in any good. So in all matters pertaining to religious obligation, the law may compel a hypocritical observance of its provision, but it cannot render men pure and acceptable to God. The Lord has not delegated his work to Cæsar. Let the Bible be upheld by our churches; let it be exemplified by Christians; let it be urged upon the consciences of men by its friends; but let the law keep its hands off from those duties which pertain to man’s relation to God. Every man must form a character for morality and truth, and meet it in the Judgment. As he alone will be held to account, so he must be free to act.” SOME one may ask me: “If not for the good of the children, nor for the sake of religion, but for her own safety, should not the State teach religion?” Men and women of every possible shade of belief, and of every possible shade of non-belief down to zero of belief, make the State, and support the State, therefore the State can have no religion nor can she support any. If the State has no religion then how can she teach it?—Rev. T. D. Peake. “WOE unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” These words, uttered so many centuries ago, have never lost their force. They are just as applicable in our day, and there is the same spirit for them to rebuke now as was manifested then. It is very natural to see others’ faults. It is so easy to say, “If we had only been in those days or in their place, we would not have done as they did.” The scribes and Pharisees could look back on the acts of their impious fathers and condemn their course for slaying the prophets and killing those that were sent unto them, while at the same time they were only waiting for a good opportunity to stain their hands with the blood of the Son of God. The same spirit was shown by the Romish Church, who, while she condemned those wicked Jews for crucifying the Lord, at the same time crucified him millions of times in the person of his saints, all through the long Dark Ages. We look with horror on the wholesale work of slaughter done by the Inquisition, while at the same time in our own Nation a large organization is formed, and its numbers are swelling every year, whose sole purpose is to do the very thing that will cause to be re-enacted the same scenes in our country as were enacted by Rome in her days of power. The adherents of this movement by styling themselves National Reformers virtually admit that they consider themselves as better than their fathers. They claim to be laboring for the good of the Nation, but like the Pharisees of old they fail to see that they are only following the same course they are so free to condemn in others. History repeats itself; because human nature is the same in all ages, and always will be, and we can avoid making the mistakes that others have made only by firmly adhering to principle and right. If we would honor those who established this Nation and those who have preserved it, let us remember that these noble, unselfish men bought with their blood, blessings of liberty and peace that we have no right to recklessly throw away. Such a move as is set on foot by the National Reformers should stir up every true American to work to forever preserve the blessings of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” A Cardinal on Sunday Observance.
By C. P. B.
ACCORDING to the Mail and Express of the 8th inst., “Cardinal Gibbons, in regard to the sacredness of the Sabbath, and the desecration of the day by baseball and kindred sports, has this to say:” I think that Sunday should be first of all a day devoted to religious worship, and, second, to innocent and healthful recreation, as being the only day in which the great masses of the people have time to seek relaxation from their work. The danger is in the excess either way, and I entirely agree with Dr. Weld (pastor of the First Independent Christ's Church) in deprecating the closing of our art galleries, libraries, etc. absolutely, to the public, presupposing that a certain portion of the day is set apart for religious exercises. I think that any recreation that will contribute to the physical, mental, and moral benefit and enjoyment of the masses should be encouraged. I think that baseball is a game that is in conflict with the quiet decorum and tranquillity that should characterize the observance of the Lord's day, and is too violent an exercise to be conducive to such harmony. This much the Mail and Express quoted from the Cardinal, but neglected to inform its readers that he also said:— Whatever may be the abuse arising from Sunday baseball, I regard the baseball players and observers of the game as far less responsible than those who utter from the pulpit on the Lord's day unjust and uncharitable statements about their neighbor. The Christian Sunday is not to be confounded with the Jewish or even the Puritan Sabbath. This is a cut direct at the pet theories of the Mail and Express and the American Sabbath Union. Their design is to enforce Sunday-keeping on the basis of the fourth commandment. This idea the Cardinal repudiates, maintaining as all Catholics do that Sunday is an institution of the Church. “The Church,” he says, “desires us on that day to be cheerful without dissipation, grave and religious without sadness and melancholy. She forbids, indeed, all unnecessary servile work on that day, but as the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, she allows such work whenever charity or necessity may demand it. As it is a day consecrated not only to religion but to relaxation of mind and body, she permits us to spend a portion of it in innocent recreation.” The Mail and Express is less tolerant than the Cardinal, and the church which he represents, and would invoke the strong arm of the civil law to restrain the people from even those amusements that the Roman Catholic Church, which, according to her own representation, is the mother of the Sunday institution, freely permits. The Mail and Express, and the association of which its proprietor is president, are largely, if not wholly, responsible for the continued Sunday closing of the Metropolitan Art Gallery, and the Museum of Natural History, in this city, by which thousands of poor people are deprived of the privilege of ever looking upon the beautiful and instructive things which they contain, and which are supposed to be for the benefit of the public, not simply for the gratification of those who are able to take a day off occasionally to look at them. The Cardinal, the Mail and Express, and the American Sabbath Union are, however, all agreed that if it is competent for the State to require Sunday observance, and this is, after all, the all-important point; those who agree on this are not likely to disagree very widely in regard to detail.