p. 198, para. 25 | The American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 25 (June 23, 1892)

Earlier text: ON another page of this paper will be found a detailed account of the trial of W

A Judicial Profession of Christianity for the Nation.

By A. T. Jones

[Further extracts from an address by A. T. Jones, delivered at Battle Creek, Mich., May 14, 1892, as reported in the Review and Herald.]

When Henry VIII wanted a divorce from his wife the Pope could not make his political ends meet so as to grant it; and Henry took the matter into his own and Cramer's hands, and divorced both his wife and the Pope. This separated the Church of England from the Catholic Church. Then that which had formerly been the Catholic Church in England, became the Church of England, the only difference being that Henry was head of the church instead of the Pope. Thus Henry still maintained his title of “Defender of the Faith,” and it was the same faith—except only as to the head of it.

Under Edward VI, a few very slight steps were taken further away from the absolute Catholic faith. Under Mary, a powerful effort was made to bring all back into full harmony with the papal religion. Mary soon died, and Elizabeth succeeded, and would have been glad to complete Mary's scheme, but could not, and was obliged to be content with things as they were left by Edward, for the nation and people, while in her own private individual life, she inclined strongly to the papal religion outright. So that the sum of the matter is, that the religion professed in the Church of England in Queen Elizabeth's time, was a religion which was just as near to the Roman Catholic religion as was possible, without being precisely that religion.

And this is the religion which the Supreme Court of the United States finds to be historically intended to be established here, and which by this decision the court declares now to be established here, according to the meaning of the Constitution of the United States; because the language of the Constitution and the language of all these other documents is one language, “having one meaning.” It is to be expected also that the religion established should be as much like the papal religion as possible, without being precisely that religion itself, as the prophecy says that it would be said “that they should make an image to the beast”—the Papacy.

Yet the court does not propose to be partial, nor presume to establish strictly this particular phase of religion without giving any other any chance or recognition. It proceeds next to introduce Puritanism, as follows:—

The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites:—

“Having undertaken for the glory of God and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the ends aforesaid.”

Having thus established what it chooses to declare to be “the Christian faith” as the religion of this Nation, the court next proceeds to cite historical evidence that it is legitimate to use the civil power to maintain “the discipline of the churches.” This is done by citing the compact of the Puritans who settled Connecticut, as follows:—

Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise dispensation of divine prudence so to Order and dispose of things that we the inhabitants and residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vpon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered together, the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God to order and dispose of the affaires of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; doe therefore associate and conioyne ourselves to be as one Publike State or Commonwealth; and doe, for our selves and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to us att any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to mayntayne and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now professe. AS ALSO THE DISIPLYNE OF THE CHURCHES, wch according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs.

By this “historical” citation, the Supreme Court just as certainly establishes and justifies the employment of the “Civil Body Politick” for the maintenance of “the discipline of the churches,” as by the previous ones it establishes the Christian religion as the religion of this Nation. And this decision declares that the language of this citation and the language of the national Constitution is “one language,” “having one meaning.” By this, therefore, the Supreme Court has decided that the civil power, even of the United State Government, can rightly be employed to maintain the discipline of the churches. And this, as we know and have shown over and over again, is exactly what the churches are aiming to bring about by the national enforcement of Sunday laws, and this is precisely what is done by the enforcement of Sunday laws, either State or national. And this the decision of the Supreme Court fully establishes, and sanctions and justifies by its (mis)interpretation of the national Constitution.

So far, therefore, in this decision, we find a national religion established with the maintenance of the discipline of the churches. What next?—Why, the requirement of the religious oath of witnesses, and the religious test oath as a qualification for office. After citing William Penn's grant of privileges to the province of Pennsylvania, and the Declaration of Independence, in which “the Creator,” “the Supreme Judge of the world,” and “Divine Providence” is referred to, and the Constitution of Illinois, in which God is recognized, the court quotes from the Constitution of Maryland, as follows, and for the purpose of establishing the legality of the religious oath and the religious test-oath:—

That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief: Provided, He believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come.

“Provided he believes in the existence of God.” That is, in other words, no man ought to be interfered with in his profession or principles of religious belief, provided he holds these according to the dictates of the State. That has been the practice in all the history of the Catholic Church. It is the very doctrine of the Papacy. It was also the doctrine of pagan Rome, before the Papacy supplanted it. Paganism declared that “no man should have particular gods of his own, except they are recognized by the laws of the State.” But the court continues this quotation, providing further:—

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

That is the provision and the requirement of the Constitution of Maryland. But, says the Supreme Court, that speaks the same language as the Constitution of the United States, and that the Constitution of the United States and this quotation have “one meaning.” And although the Constitution of the United States positively declares that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under this Government, this decision says that it means that no other religious test shall ever be required, as does the Constitution of Maryland, for these documents “all” have “one language” and “one meaning.”

So, then, we find that so far, this decision establishes a national religion, with the maintenance of the discipline of the churches, and the requirement of the religious oath in court, and the religious test-oath as a qualification for office. And what next?—Why, public taxation for the support of religion. This is justified and established by a quotation from the Constitution of Massachusetts, as follows:—

It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government are essentially dependent upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their Government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their Legislature with power to authorize and require, and the Legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And says the court, This document and the Constitution of the United States have the same language, have “one meaning,” and both alike, with all the other quotations, “speak the voice of the entire people.” So far, then, by this decision there is established here, a national religion, with the maintenance of the discipline of the churches by the civil power, the requirement of the religious oath and the religious test-oath, and public taxation for “the worship of God,” and for “the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of religion.” The wicked thing grows rapidly as it goes.

"The Gentleman from South Carolina."

By W. H. M.

A POSTAL card has been received at this office, postmarked South Carolina, and signed, "A South Carolina Man," bearing these words, "Your criticism, June 9th, No. 23, of Hon. Geo. Johnstone is unjust and wrong."

If this gentleman from South Carolina will obtain copies of the Congressional Record of the dates of May 26 and 27, and read the report there published of the proceedings of the House, while in consideration of the Sunday closing of the World's Fair as asked by the amendment, proposed by Mr. Johnstone, to the clause in reference to the Government exhibit at the World's Fair in the sundry civil appropriation bill, he will there find a record such as would justify a far sharper criticism of the course of the Representative from South Carolina, in this matter, than has appeared, or will appear, in this paper.

At this time the House had under consideration the matter of further appropriation for expenditures necessary to the Government exhibit at the Exposition. The general management of the Fair was not under discussion in any particular. The subject matter brought to the attention of the House was confined to the exhibit to be made by the Government, and that alone. And yet, ignoring this fact, Mr. Johnstone offers an amendment, "That no part of the amount hereby appropriated shall be available unless the doors of the Exposition shall be closed on Sunday." Mr. Johnstone's intent, by this amendment, was to make the United States Government say to the World's Fair Managers that although Government appropriations to a large amount had already been made both for the Fair in general and also for the individual exhibit of the Government, yet if the Fair should be opened on Sunday the Government would forfeit all this and refuse to make its individual exhibit. Mr. Johnstone's own words show that this is what he intended, for, in replying to Mr. Taylor, of Illinois, he said:—

As this paragraph relates to the exhibit to be made by the Government of the United States, this limitation upon the appropriation would simply mean that this exhibit by the Government shall not be made unless the World's Fair corporation consents to have the Exhibition remain closed on Sunday.

And again in another place:—

The amendment if adopted would simply mean that the agents of the Federal Government, before they could get the use of this money, would have to get an agreement from the World's Fair corporation that the fair should be closed on Sunday during the Exhibition.

And yet again in still another place:—

The point I desire to emphasize by my amendment is that this appropriation of money of the American people should not be expended at all unless the institution upon which, or in connection with which, this fund is to be expended shall be closed on Sunday.

And again, at the close of the second day's discussion when the substitute offered by Mr. Dockery, "That the Government exhibits at the World's Columbian Exposition shall not be opened to the public on Sundays," had been adopted, Mr. Johnstone, in his zeal to condition the exhibit of the Government upon the Sunday closing of the entire Fair, offered his previous proposition as an amendment to the substitute, even after that had been passed as the completed action upon the subject and there was nothing before the House.

Mr. Johnstone's zeal in this matter is shown by the Record which names him as being on his feet thirty-seven times in the course of this discussion. Mr. Johnstone offered the proposition; he assumed the responsibility of precipitating the discussion of this question upon the House, and just as far as he could he showed his dissatisfaction with that which was done in the matter, although it differed from that which he wished done, not in kind, but only in degree. The kind of legislation asked, and which was secured, is religious legislation. Is legislation upon religious questions contrary to the Constitution of the United States as it was established, or is it not? If it is, as none will deny, Congress was estopped by the Constitution from legislating at all upon the Sunday question; and Mr. Johnstone with one hundred and thirty other Congressmen not only ignored an express provision of the Constitution, but Mr. Johnstone attempted to delude Congress into inserting in an appropriation bill a measure indirectly compelling the Managers of the World's Fair to themselves yield obedience also to a religious edict formulated by Congress and made an essential part of the appropriation for its own exhibit.

If Mr. Johnstone's course in this matter were really being made a subject of critical examination, what characterization could be used which would do him wrong or injustice? W. H. M.

Union or Not?

By M. E. STEWARD

In a lecture not long since, Rev. Joseph Cook wished it understood that he did not believe in the “union of Church and State.” The fact is, people, generally, seem to have learned enough about religious liberty to know that Church and State must be kept separate; but very few understand the real meaning of these terms.

Mr. Cook went on to say that Sunday ought to be kept more holy, and he wanted a law to compel people to keep it; others have desired the same. Now, do these people understand the meaning of “Church” and “State?” Since they believe the Bible, consistency requires that they accept all of it, as it is. What is the scriptural idea of this subject? Where does the Bible draw the line between the authority of God and of earthly governments and our allegiance to both? Christ said to the Jews (Matt. 22: 21;) “Render, therefore, unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Cæsar, standing at the head of the universal empire of Rome, was the representative of all earthly governments. He had a right to control many things, but Christ limited civil power when he commanded, “Render unto God the things that are God’s.” According to this plain direction, Cæsar is not to come between the people and their duty to God in anything. The Church, i. e. the people of God, are doing God’s work on the earth; so far as they do it and he accepts it they represent him, just as our ministers to foreign countries represent the United States Government which indorses the work of its foreign representatives as though done by itself.

Christ gave his Church definite directions about treating offenders. The extreme penalty of the law was not to be fines, imprisonment, etc.; for as the Church is spiritual, so is all its work. “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican,” “Whatsoever ye (the Church) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt. 18: 17, 18. Jesus did not give this power to the civil authority; on the contrary, Paul reproved his brethren for going to law before unbelievers. The people of God are appointed to control the things of God, entirely exclusive of Cæsar or any worldly power; and when civil authorities legislate regarding anything religious they unite their (State) power to the power of the Church, and there is a union of State and Church. Our Saviour, who is our example, refused to interfere with the authority that rightfully belongs to the courts of justice. Said he to one, regarding his earthly inheritance, “Who made me a judge or divider over you?” Thus did Christ draw the line sharply and unmistakably between the things of God and those of Cæsar.

To ascertain if any particular instance is a union of Church and State, we have but to inquire, Is it of a religious character?

Whether it is right or wrong makes no difference. If it is religious the law must not touch it. We may trust the Lord to take care of all that belongs to him.

What about keeping Sunday? We have only to decide whether the Sunday Sabbath is a religious institution, or merely a civil one, like the Fourth of July, or Decoration Day. It is evident that Mr. Cook does not want a civil Sabbath, since he is calling for a more holy (religious) observance of the day. A law to compel people to keep it holy, unites the two essential points of Church and State; and while Mr. Cook blindly asserts that he does not want them united, he is at the same time pleading for it.

M. E. STEWARD.

A Faithful Press and a False Pulpit.

At this particular time it is more than ever essential that newspapers should be conducted by Christian men, guided and controlled by Christian principles and convictions. The pulpit in several conspicuous instances has gone utterly astray in its teachings. Instead of proclaiming the great principles of Christianity and thus glorifying God, it is disseminating satanic doctrines ruinous to the soul. It is betraying the cause which it was appointed to defend. Ministers of the gospel are showing that their hearts are hardened to its teachings and that their minds have become so far perverted that they can not perceive its sublime philosophy. They are teaching men doctrines which are subversive of the foundations of the moral order and destructive of every valuable safeguard of social virtue. They are justifying anarchy and every crime which men can commit against society. They say that because Parkhurst's motives were to expose crime, he was right in himself committing a crime against the moral law. They justify him in deceiving, tempting, and hiring harlots to make a shameful exhibition of themselves before him in order that he might betray them.

In order to detect a murderer, then, they would have to justify the hiring of him to commit murder. Dr. Rainsford says that the saloon is an evil, but he would have the Church take charge of it, so that the evil might be used for good.

Other ministers are showing that they have no belief in the Christian principle of dealing with evil by opposing to it good. They think it is too slow and too tiresome in its workings. It takes too long to change the hearts of men, so that they shall hate evil and love good. They instruct them to take a short cut by doing evil in order to get good. If the purpose is to use the money for charity, they can steal it. If they think a man is a swindler, they can themselves swindle in order to catch him. If people are licentious, they can descend into any depths of licentiousness in order to expose them. If others sacrifice their self-respect, you can sacrifice yours in order to see them do it. If they will not degrade themselves for nothing, pay them to degrade themselves.

These are vile principles, and as pulpits are teaching them, the newspaper must take the place of such pulpits and proclaim the heavenly doctrines essential for the preservation of society. Hence, editors should be Christian men who work for the glory of God by inculcating sound Christian principles.

The public should hold every newspaper up to the highest religious standard always, and more especially at this day when that standard has fallen so low among many sensational ministers.—The Sun.

POLITICAL religion and religious politics are developing quite rapidly in New Jersey. A very good evidence of this may be found in the following from the Sun, of June 14:—

“In a sermon on Sunday the Rev. Dr. Scudder, of Jersey City, said: ‘As long as Police Superintendent Smith remains in office we may expect little else than the present lawlessness and defiance on the part of saloon-keepers. When Mayor Wanser gets through with the Board of Works, let him pay his respects to Superintendent Smith and ask him to resign.’”

“‘Dr. Scudder,’ said Superintendent Smith yesterday, ‘is an active Republican politician. He makes his pulpit a political stump from which he advocates the election of Republican candidates. Before the last election he called a meeting of ministers, and endeavored to get up a boom for the Republican candidate for Mayor. His effort failed. The majority of the ministers were not disposed to mix practical politics with their religion, and by their positive refusal to join in the scheme they virtually condemned Dr. Scudder and his method. I have never had any conversation with Dr. Scudder,

and why he should attack me I am at a loss to understand. If his motives are not political, what are they? I am a Democrat; my predecessor, Chief Murphy, is a Republican. I have been in charge of the Police Department only a short time; Chief Murphy was at the head of it for many years. Did Dr. Scudder ever attack Chief Murphy for not enforcing the law? Perhaps the good Doctor is not aware of the fact that the Sunday law is being more strictly enforced than in a great many years. When Dr. Scudder came to this benighted city from the far West, and took upon himself the task of making it good and Republican at the same time, he could discover wickedness only in departments controlled by Democrats.’”

“‘I have this proposition to make to Dr. Scudder: If he will bring me a letter from Mayor Wanser directing that the Sunday law be more rigidly enforced than it is now, I will guarantee that not a saloon in this city will be open even the least little bit.’”

“‘Heretofore when the city had a Democratic Mayor and the Democrats had a majority in the Police Board, the responsibility for not rigidly enforcing the Sunday law was thrown upon the Mayor and the Commissioners. Now that there is a Republican Mayor, why should Dr. Scudder try to fix the sole responsibility upon me? It looks as if there might be some politics in it aside from the desire to conserve the public morals.’”

Not only has Congress been asked to manage the local affairs of Chicago on Sunday during the World’s Fair, but all Europe is now giving its advice to the Columbian Commission as to what disposition it shall make of its Sundays, as shown by this paragraph from the Christian Advocate:—

“We have already noticed memorials in favor of the Sunday closing of the World’s Fair from the International Federation of Europe, with its headquarters at Geneva, and also the interesting volume of memorials from representatives of different classes in England. Recently other petitions on the same subject have been received by Dr. Atterbury, of the New York Sabbath Committee, for transmission to the Columbian Commission, from the committee of the Free Church of Scotland, from the Workingmen’s Sabbath Association of Glasgow, and from some prominent business firms of Glasgow. And now comes another memorial from the Continent. An international congress on the Sunday observance has just been in session for three days in Stuttgart, in Germany, attended by representatives from different parts of Europe. Its president was Count Von Bernstorff, Chamberlain of the Emperor of Germany. The sessions of the congress were largely attended, and much interest was shown in the reports and discussions. On one occasion the famous ex-Court Preacher Stoecker delivered an address of great power before an audience of three thousand persons. By this congress a petition was unanimously adopted asking for the closing of the Exposition on Sunday, both for the sake of the numerous employes, who would otherwise be deprived of their Sunday rest after the hard labors of the week, and for the influence which such an example would have upon the visitors from the Old World in showing how the American people appreciate the divine institution of the Sunday rest, to which they owe to a great extent their national and economical greatness.”

THERE is an effort in Chicago to prevent the unconstitutional appropriation of State funds to religious institutions. The following incident as recorded in the Chicago Tribune of May 7, will materially aid in that direction:—

At yesterday’s meeting of the Woman’s Alliance, some commotion was raised by the reading of a report from a committee which endeavored to “inspect” the House of the Good Shepherd.

The report claimed that nine of the members visited the house, found it barred and locked like a prison, and were refused admission by Sister Philomena, who gave as a reason the absence of the Mother Superior. The latter, however, appeared after the committee had shown sufficient persistence. The Mother Superior said that as she was about to start for Europe it would not be convenient to show them through. The committee informed her that they had a permit from the Governor to visit all institutions receiving public money. This authority did not move the Mother Superior, who at once ended the conversation, which was carried on through the bars.

The committee then sent two of their number to invoke the aid of the Chief of Police, while the remainder sat in a little closet and regaled themselves, according to the report, with crackers and cheese. While waiting for developments they again sent for the Mother Superior, who sent Sister Philomena in her place. The sister in answer to numerous questions said that she had been there thirty years but knew nothing about two hundred and sixty girls, inmates, their names being changed when they entered. Any records kept were not for the public.

The sub-committee finally returned with a letter to the Mother Superior from Judge Scales advising her to allow the women to go through the house. Another refusal was the result. A positive “no” was also given when the committee sent a message asking if they could do so at some future time. A threat was then made to call a police officer, and this having no effect, the committee gave up the siege as hopeless, and retired.

The Catholic Church, and all other churches now receiving State appropriations, must either submit to the State inspection, and dictation as to the use made of the appropriation, or relinquish that appropriation. This last is the proper thing to do.

The attention of Mr. Johnstone, of South Carolina, is called to the following dispatch:—

CHARLESTON, S. C., June 14.—The city council to-day, under pressure of public opinion, adopted a resolution authorizing the Mayor to relax the stringent blue Sunday laws recently enacted under the law, as adopted by the present administration. The only article purchasable in this city on Sunday was the Sunday cocktail, which was of course obtained through side doors. The soda water, ice cream and fruit stands were hermetically sealed, and even the drug-stores were prevented from selling sweet stuff. The public became restive, especially as murder and crime seemed to be on the increase. Hence the resolutions adopted by the Board of Aldermen to-day.

Perhaps the call for the establishment of political religion, from South Carolina, is not quite so pressing as its representative has thought. If that be so, when the debate comes up in the House, on the conditioning of the five million loan to the Exposition, on Sunday closing, his voice will not be heard thirty-seven times in favor of enforcing political religion at Chicago.

The Mail and Express publishes the following:—

The news that a number of German families who settled at Kieff, Russia, have been driven out of the Czar's empire because they refused to give up their religion and join the Russian Orthodox Church, confirms the opinion of those who, like M. A. Leroy-Beaulieu, maintain that the Russian Government has adopted the policy of gradually driving out all strangers from the country, and that their expulsion of the Jews is but one, although the principal manifestation of this policy.

The attention of the Mail and Express should be called to Arkansas and Tennessee, where there has been and is now a determined effort to drive out peaceable and worthy citizens, acknowledged to be conscientious men, because of a difference in religious belief and practice.

On Sunday, June 12, a reporter for the Sun was refused information as to the name of a smallpox patient just sent to North Brother Island, on the ground that the Health Department being closed on Sunday no information could be given. That is to say that although open for business, the office was “constructively” closed, and therefore, as, by fiction of law, no business was being transacted, there could be no information to give. Great is king humbug!

THE Southern Presbyterian General Assembly, in session at Hot Springs, Ark., May 24, passed resolutions demanding that the World's Fair be closed on Sunday. It is a noticeable fact that very few, if any, religious bodies meet nowadays without passing such resolutions. Yet many still tell us that they can see no menace in this to our freedom either civil or religious.

The Denver Daily News suggests that if the Fair is to be closed on one day of the week to satisfy one religious element, it should also be closed on any other day that other religionists should see fit to ask.

NATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ASSOCIATION.

LADY SOMERSET has addressed letters to the archbishops and bishops and the heads of all religious denominations in the United Kingdom, asking their support for legislation, in Parliament, favoring Sunday observance.

AT a meeting of the Woman’s National Press Association held lately at Washington, D. C., the question of opening the World’s Fair on Sunday was discussed. The members generally took part in the discussion, and the majority favored the opening of the gates.

A WEST VIRGINIA exchange notices the presence of a lecturer named Bennett at Berea and other places in West Virginia, in the interests of the Prohibition and Farmers’ Alliance parties, both of which seem to have entrusted their cause to his advocacy. This speaker, who has been dubbed the “Kansas Cyclone” by his adherents, came out openly, it seems, and “plainly stated the design of the parties he represented; he plainly declared their intention to make everything secondary to the agitation of the Sunday question. Immediately following the speeches of Mr. Bennett, the Republican primaries were held, and religio-political matters discussed on every hand.” Political religion is certainly becoming popular when its voice is heard from the stump.

UNDER the head of “The Law Defied,” the Woman’s Voice, of May 14, has the following:—

On Sunday, May 7, St. Joseph’s Cathedral of Hartford was dedicated. The Romanists asked that special trains be run for their accommodation. The New York, New Haven and Hartford road refused to apply to the railroad commissioners for permission to run trains, the Sunday railroad law not permitting the running of any trains between 10.30 A. M. and 3 P. M., except to meet demands created by the public necessity or in the interests of mercy. Mr. Noonan, local Superintendent of the New England road, made application a week ago to the commissioners for a permit to run special trains for the accommodation of visitors to the dedication. The commissioners refused the request, but Mr. Noonan announced that three special trains would be run between Waterbury and Hartford, within the prohibited hours. The penalty is two hundred and fifty dollars for each offense.

We doubt whether such a defiance of law would have been permitted had Protestants been the aggressors. The impudence of Romanists in making such a demand contrary to law, shows how sure they are of their power.

Consistency in the observance of Sunday does not exist any more within the Church than without; and such an incident as this should convince some of the truth of that fact, and of the consequent inutility of Sunday laws.

A Canadian daily paper remarks that “the fining of a Jew or two in Toronto recently for working on Sunday would seem likely to raise a question of much importance and much difficulty. Some Christians, like the Jews, keep Saturday as a holy day and would work on Sunday if they were not subject to penalties. Why should they be? Why should the laws recognize the opinions of any ecclesiastical authority or set of authorities as to which, Saturday or Sunday, is the divinely appointed day of rest?”

The question is entirely pertinent. There is absolutely no good reason for such regulations, but very many reasons why there should be nothing of the kind.

“The Prohibition Party and Freedom of Conscience”

No. 49 of the “Sentinel Library,” is just the thing to circulate during the political campaign. It sets forth clearly the proper sphere of civil government, and can not fail to fix the attention of candid, thinking people. Eight pages; price, one cent; usual discount in large quantities.

HEALTH FOODS.

PURE CRACKERS AND BISCUITS, and Cereal Coffee

MANUFACTURED BY THE BATTLE CREEK BAKERY COMPANY.

ESTABLISHED IN 1881.

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 “   “   “   “	2.60
Oat Meal “   “   “   “	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.

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.

REFERENCES.

To whom it may concern:

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. R. Roraback, 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.

Continue reading: SENTINEL LIBRARY.