Your ShelfYour Projects

The American Sentinel, Vol. 3, No. 1.

Religious Despotism in Russia
Earlier text: Religious Despotism in Russia

A Sunday-Law Convention.

By Alonzo T. Jones

In the Union Signal of October 20, 1887, Mrs. Lydia B. Clark gives an article on the “Hopeful Outlook for Sabbath Observance,” and says that in its Sunday-law work the W. C. T. U. has found “most cordial helpers” in the World’s Prayer Union, the International Sabbath Association, and the National Reform Association. She reports certain legislative action that was taken last year in several States. Of the matter in California she says:—
“Two years ago in California the Sunday law was repealed, but the people last winter plied the Legislature with petitions to replace the repealed law with an improved statute, and in San Francisco a convention of ministers was called, a bill prepared and introduced in the Legislature demanding protection of the Sabbath.”
Yes, that is so. And as such things are now quite widely prevalent, we propose to show to the people the way in which a typical Sunday-law convention works to secure the “demanded” legislation. This excellent lady has given us the text, and we shall supply the sermon. The SENTINEL was at the Convention named, and took copious notes of the proceedings, and has preserved the report for just such a time as this. This work has now become so general that it is highly important that the public in general and legislators in particular should know the methods employed to secure the enactment of “civil” and “protective” Sunday laws.
This San Francisco Convention, like most of such conventions, was composed almost wholly of preachers. The thing originated in the “Pastors’ Union” of Sacramento, it being “the sense of the Pastors’ Union of Sacramento that a meeting of the pastors and members of the churches of the State, and of all other friends of Sunday legislation in the State, should be called . . . to secure the passage of a Sunday law,” etc. This “sense” was approved by “the preachers of the Methodist Church” and the Convention was called, and met accordingly in the Young Men’s Christian Association building, November 29, 1886.
The first and perhaps the most notable thing about the Convention that would be noticed by a looker-on was the perfect confusion of ideas as to what was really wanted. It is true that there was perfect unanimity on the point that there should be a law demanded of the Legislature, but that was the only single thing upon which there was any real agreement.
With some, nothing but a Sunday law would do; with others, nothing but a Sabbath law would answer. With some, it must be a civil Sabbath law; with others, a religious Sabbath law. With some, it must be a civil Sunday law; with others, a religious Sunday law. With some, it was a Christian Sunday that was wanted; with others, a Christian Sabbath. With some it was a religious Sabbath law that was wanted, and a religious Sabbath law that must be had, and they were ready to go to the Legislature upon that basis; but these were very few. While with others, and these the great majority, it was a religious Sunday law or a religious Sabbath law that was wanted, but at the same time it was naively argued that to go to the Legislature with such a request would be all in vain, for the Legislature would not act upon any question of a religious nature; therefore, to get what they wanted, they must ask only for a civil Sunday law.
It was upon this last point that the discussion and the action of the Convention culminated. And by this action there was irresistibly forced upon the mind of an observer a strong impression of the insincerity of the great majority of the members of this Sunday-law Convention. The course of the discussion and this culminating action show that the majority of the members of that Convention were willing to cover up the real purpose which they had in view, and deliberately to go to the Legislature of California under a false pretense. They show that while a religious law, and nothing else, is what they wanted, yet, as to openly ask the Legislature for that would be fruitless, they proposed to obtain what they wanted—a religious Sunday law—by getting the Legislature to pass a civil Sunday law. That is, they would have the Legislature to pass a civil Sunday law, and then they would enforce it as a religious Sunday law. In other words, they proposed to hoodwink the Legislature of California. They didn’t succeed.
Another evidence of this insincerity was the ringing of the now familiar changes upon the “workingman.” One had very great sympathy for the “toiling multitudes.” Another was the “friend of the workingman,” and “if any people are the friends of the workingman, they are the ministers.” And yet not one of them was there as the representative of the workingman, nor was it the needs of the workingman upon which the call of the Convention was based. When that which gave rise to the calling of the Convention was officially stated, it was that “the Christian people of Sacramento had been disturbed in their worship, and their religious feelings had been outraged by the disregard of the Sabbath; the matter had come before the Pastors’ Conference; a correspondence opened with divines throughout the State on the subject of a Sunday law; and accordingly the present Convention had been called.” And one of the principal speakers in the Convention, in the speech that was the most applauded of any made in the Convention, said plainly that the movement was a religious one and that he was decidedly opposed to divorcing it from a Christian standpoint.
It was that “the Christian people” had been disturbed in their “worship,” and not that the workingmen had been deprived of their rest; it was that the “religious feelings” of “the Christian people” had been outraged, and not that the workingman had been oppressed, nor that his feelings had been outraged; it was with the “divines,” and not with the workingmen throughout the State that a correspondence had been opened; it was these considerations and not the needs of the workingman that formed the basis of the call for the Convention. And yet in the face of these definite statements, some of these “divines” would get up in the Convention, and fish for the favor and try to catch the ear of the workingman, by trying to make it appear that they came there as “the friends of the workingman.”
And, too, just think of a lot of “divines” called in general convention to secure the enactment of a Sunday law to protect the “worship” and the “religious feelings” of “Christian people;” and then to fulfill the purpose, and to attain to the object of that call, they, in convention assembled, unanimously decide to go up to the Legislature and demurely ask for a law entirely civil! And why is this? Why could they not go to the Legislature in the name of that purpose for which they were called? Oh, that would never do! For if the word “civil” be stricken out, “you cannot reach the Legislature.” Therefore just put in the word “civil” and the purpose of the Convention will be accomplished, for we will get all we want and the Legislature will not know it.” But the Legislature of California was not so exceedingly verdant as to be unable to see through that piece of wire-work, so deftly woven by these worthy divines.
The demand of these “Christian people” for a Sunday law, because their worship was disturbed, is just as hollow a pretense as is any other part of their scheme. For if their worship was really disturbed, they have already a sufficient resource. For the protection of religious worship from disturbance, the statutes of California make provision that ought to satisfy any ordinary mortal. Section 302 of the Penal Code of California reads as follows:—
“Every person who willfully disturbs or disquiets any assemblage of people met for religious worship, by noise, profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or by any unnecessary noise either within the place where such meeting is held, or so near as to disturb the order and solemnity of the meeting, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
And such misdemeanor is punishable by “imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or both.”—Id., sec. 19.
Are not six months in jail and a fine of five hundred dollars a sufficient punishment for the disturbance of worship? Or is this penalty so insignificant that these “divines” and “Christian people” disdain to inflict so light a punishment, and therefore demand a Sunday law to make the punishment heavier? But if the present penalty is insufficient to properly punish those who disturb their worship, then what will satisfy these “divines”? Where the State chastises with whips, do they want to chastise with scorpions? Do they want to imprison a man for life and mulct him of all his property for disturbing (?) their worship by working on Sunday on his farm, in his shop or garden, far away from any place of worship? We firmly believe that if the truth were told it would appear that it is not their worship at all but their doctrine that has been disturbed.
Just a word more on their pretended friendship for the workingman. We freely hazard the opinion that if they should obtain the “civil” Sunday law which they seek, then the poor workingman, who, to support his needy family, should work on Sunday, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We venture this opinion because of facts of which we know. In Tennessee there were at that time lying in prison, honest, hard-working men, whose families were dependent upon their daily labor, and these men were in that prison for working on Sunday to obtain the necessary means to support their families, and while they were in prison their families were in want, and had to be supported by the charity of Christian friends. That is the kind of friendship for the workingman that is shown in the enactment of these “civil” Sunday laws. And if the people of California, or in any other State, want to see the same thing repeated in their State, or in the Nation, then just let them allow these “divines” to secure the enactment of the “civil” Sunday law that they want. Then may be seen exemplified everywhere this solicitous friendship for the workingmen.
One of the leading members of the Convention remarked that he had “been in politics long enough to know that legislators keep their finger on the public pulse, and that they generally give what the people want.” From our observations in the Convention, of the speeches, and of its workings, we are prepared to give it as our private opinion, publicly expressed, that the most of the Convention have been in politics long enough to know a good deal about the ways and means by which politicians too often compass their ends. A. T. J.

Religious Teaching in Secular Schools.

By Rev. Geo. S. Mott, D. D.

THAT children should be taught religion, which with us means the essential doctrines of Christianity, is a proposition advocated as strenuously by all classes of Protestants as it can be by the Romanists. The real question is, How can this best be done? Our minds should not be diverted from this main point. Rome claims that this religious education should be not only co-ordinate with the secular, but intermingled with it in the instruction of each day, and should form a part of the school curriculum, and must be under the supervision and control of her priests. In other words, that the State must provide for instruction in the tenets of each denomination. She must do what she never has done—recognize denominational distinctions in her public policy.
Certainly, when so radical a change is demanded, very substantial and convincing reasons should be presented. It is not enough to appeal to denominational preferences or prejudices. It should be shown most clearly that such a method of combining the secular and religious in the same school, is the completest way of imparting religious truth. And to persuade of this, we require more than philosophical argument. Facts should be adduced. We should inquire whether such a system has been tried, and what have been the results. I propose to show that the experiment has been made under circumstances more favorable to success than we can inaugurate in this country, and that the result is such as by no means to encourage us. The idea which Rome advances has been worked out in Prussia on a Protestant basis. And the statements I make are culled from a paper read before the Western College Association at Grinnell, Iowa, December 27, 1882, by Prof. Hugh M. Scott, of the Chicago Theological Seminary. This is a paper which has not attracted the attention its importance deserves.
1. Let me present the principle. The fundamental idea, as in every German school system, is that the nation is Christian in instincts, history, and aims, and therefore no plan of instruction is complete which does not include the thorough teaching of Christian doctrine and morals. Von Muhler, the Minister of Public Instruction, said in 1870: “An attempt to dissolve the intimate union between culture and religion, between school and church—a union of more than a thousand years’ growth—would be an impossibility.” This was proposed in 1848, but dropped because of opposition throughout the country. The Constitution, he says, “determines that religious instruction shall not be given apart from the schools, but in the schools; and that the churches and religious societies shall have a leading influence in giving such instruction. It desires to have confessional (denominational) distinctions regarded as far as possible in the schools. . . . We regard religious instruction as an integral part of the sum total of school instruction. . . . The training of teachers is not to be separated from connection with the church and religious culture.”
A Government circular announces: “It is the aim of the religious instruction in schools, in connection with the catechumen and confirmation teaching, to help lead the youth to a living knowledge of their belonging to the kingdom of God on earth, and to evangelical church fellowship in it.” This is their theory of public schools, and this defines accurately the position of the Romish church in our country.
2. Let me now sketch the plan by which this principle is carried into operation. Prussian educational institutions are divided into three classes—the common school, the high school, and the university. In the first, elementary religious instruction is given by the ordinary teachers, preparatory to and in harmony with the more advanced curriculum of the high school. In the high schools, the Prussian system of teaching religion finds its most important field, and to those we shall restrict ourselves. Omitting much that would be very interesting as to the general methods of these schools, of which there are four grades, space requires that we be restricted to the plan of religious instruction. Religion is regarded as one of the regular studies of the course, and occupies the place of honor at the top of the list. All teachers must pass an examination in religious knowledge. Teachers in the highest classes must stand an examination in the contents of the Bible, the fundamental doctrines of faith and morals, church history, New Testament Greek, and Hebrew. But these qualifications are acquired less seldom than formerly, so that in many cases the local clergy must undertake the religious instruction by single hours in school.
In the lowest class, Bible narratives from the Old Testament to the times of the kings are taught from a book of Bible stories. The first part of the catechism, with Luther’s explanations, is learned by heart, the second and third parts being committed to memory without the explanation. A certain selection of texts and hymns is given to be memorized.
In the next class the New Testament narrative is to be learned in the same way, and the general division and order of the books of Scripture, catechism, and hymns are reviewed.
In the next higher class prominent portions of the Old and New Testaments are read and studied in their connection, also the geography of Palestine. Catechism is reviewed, and the third part learned with Luther’s explanations, and proof-texts. The fourth and fifth parts are committed to memory. Hymns are reviewed and new ones learned. As occasion offers, the meaning of church usages is to be taught.
In the yet higher class a more advanced course in biblical instruction is imparted. In addition to a review of hymns and texts already acquired, apostolic and church history is begun. In the next class higher these studies are continued, and the history of dogma is entered upon.
The highest class takes up the exegetical study of the Gospel of John, and the epistles to Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and parts of 1 Corinthians. The fundamental doctrines of faith and morals in their connection are taught, also an outline of creeds.
The teaching in all these classes is accompanied by proper devotional exercises, at least in form. These consist of singing, reading the Scriptures, and prayer. This is held every morning with the whole school. Each hour’s work in the forenoon is to be begun with prayer. The school closes on Saturday at noon, usually with devotional exercises, including a short address by the principal. Teachers are directed to induce their pupils to attend public worship in church; also at the proper time to turn their thoughts toward the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. A similar course is followed in the Roman Catholic religious teaching, with such modifications as their doctrines would require.
We have now an outline of the religious instruction in the Prussian school system. Thus the State maintains the compulsory religious, as well as secular, education of every child. It must be admitted that this scheme is well-nigh perfect. One more comprehensive and thorough cannot easily be devised. It seems to meet every requirement of a complete religious education. It should lead into the fellowship of the church, as it is designed to do. Fully complied with, it would fit the apt scholar almost to enter the ministry. And now we may well inquire—
3. What has been the result? This system has been in operation nearly one hundred years, and during all this period religion has declined, so that the skepticism and rationalism of Germany have become proverbial. In 1838, students of theology left the gymnasia so ignorant of the Scriptures that they could be put to shame by children. Teachers came in who regarded religion as only a moral department of the State; in whose tuition, as Christlieb declares, “Heathen classics and natural science are exalted, the Christian belief constantly pulled down, or even ridiculed in the eyes of the pupils.” “In most of our high schools the religious instruction is given so badly that this is one of the chief causes of our common rationalism, and the infidelity and religious indifference amongst our educated classes.” So writes the same high authority.
This system, so admirably arranged, has failed to keep Prussia Christian except in name. It produced a formalism which made everyone a member of the church, but at the expense of vital piety. This system superseded the necessity of Sabbath-schools, because the children were supposed to be taught the same religious truths which are inculcated in the Sabbath-school system. Yet, as a fact, this end was not secured, so that the evangelical portion of Germany feel the need of the Sabbath-school, and are establishing them in all parts of the empire. The wisest and most devout clearly understand that their elaborate course of religious instruction in the public schools cannot be relied upon to make the children truly Christian.
England and America, on the other hand, have maintained and perfected the Sabbath-school system during the same period. And what have we to show as results? A most marked improvement in public morals, and a great advance in all forms of religious activity. Space will not permit me to present the proofs of this. They can be abundantly furnished. Let those who doubt this read the chapter on the “Social Condition of Great Britain,” in Mackenzie’s “Nineteenth Century,” or Dorchester’s “Problem of Religious Progress.” In our own land churches have kept pace with the marvelous growth of population, and untiring efforts are made to elevate the masses. The multiplicity of denominations presents an insuperable obstacle to the State in any endeavor to teach that amount of religion which each denomination desires for its own children. Those specific doctrines must be left to the family and the Sabbath-school. If they are not inculcated there, they cannot be imparted satisfactorily in any other mode. This plan has been so successful in our own land that we have no reason to venture on some other scheme. Much less can we adopt the method advocated by Rome, which has produced such undesirable results in Germany.—Rev. Geo. S. Mott, D. D., in New York Observer.

“A Pen-Picture.”

By Alonzo T. Jones

In the Interior of October 20 there is a racy report of the State Convention of the Ohio W. C. T. U. It is entitled “A Pen-Picture of the Ohio W. C. T. U. Convention.” We have no doubt that that is what it is, and a well-drawn picture too, for some of the scenes are decidedly realistic—much more so in fact than we should have thought becoming in a woman's temperance convention, to say nothing of a woman's Christian temperance convention. In one of the scenes Miss Willard very properly paid a glowing tribute to the influence of Mrs. Hayes, Miss Rose Elizabeth Cleveland, and the present Mrs. Cleveland, in the White House. She closed with the words, “God bless Frances Folsom Cleveland,” to which sentiment the applause was very properly immense. But to this sentiment one of the members of the Convention promptly took decided exception, at which the reporter, herself a member of the Union, expresses herself after this gentle, womanly, Christian style: “Out upon such littleness! Such a spirit shows a venom unworthy a civilized woman. Perhaps she was in the gall of bitterness because her husband had been turned out of office; if so we must try to excuse her.”
Another, called in the report a “lively scene,” ensued when the Committee on Finance reported in favor of paying salaries to the leading officers, and in favor of the President's visiting all the county and district meetings “at the expense of the Convention.” Against this there was strong opposition, and, the report says: “Mrs. Foote led the opposition forces, and showed herself a fearless soldier, full of fire and spirit. In fact, she got mad, . . . and for a few minutes it seemed quite like a masculine assemblage.” Yes, we have no doubt that it did. Women, fearless and soldierly, full of fire and spirit, and mad, at that, are not apt to appear very feminine-like.
But says the excellent reporter: “Now some people might think this little fray not a very proper thing, but I don't see why. It shows they are not afraid to do their own thinking, and although they are excellent women, they are very much like the excellent men—somewhat human.” Yes, that is just the trouble. It shows they are rather too much like the, not very, excellent men. And the observation which we would here make upon it is this: One of the principal reasons upon which these excellent women base their claim of the franchise and political equality with the men is that politics will be purified and all its methods elevated. But if this is the way in which the Christian women of the country act in a convention exclusively their own, and wholly separated from political strife, what would be the result in mixed assemblages, where not only these, but un-Christian and anti-Christian women as well, should have free scope for their activities equally with the men, and all together stirred with all the elements of political strife?
Hitherto we have been somewhat unsettled in our opinion in regard to woman suffrage, but now—well, we don't know.
This report was written by Virginia Sharpe Patterson. A. T. J.

Entirely Too Familiar.

The Christian Advocate says:— “An ill-constructed school-house in New York City collapses before its completion, burying its builders in its ruins and causing much of death and suffering. The Roman Catholic priest for whose parochial uses it was being erected is among the victims. Blame is laid on the ‘building inspector,’ by whose connivance or oversight illegal expedients were resorted to, which brought about this terrible accident. What is his defense? Simply this: He knew the priest had sufficient political influence to obtain a permit for any constructive irregularities he might choose to indulge in. Whether this be true or not is of less importance than the appalling fact—which none will deny—that such a charge may be brought against a priest without astonishing anyone. Roman Catholics justify the employment of all forces—moral and immoral—for the advancement of ‘the church’; and Protestants are so familiar with the intermeddling of Rome with politics that they are no longer shocked by them.”
Yes, Protestants are becoming entirely too familiar with the intermeddling of Rome with politics. In California one of the foremost preachers of the Methodist Church on the Pacific Coast—C. C. Stratton, D. D.—goes on a mission to Archbishop Riordon, to gain the co-operation of the Catholic Church in a matter entirely political. In New York City the leading Protestant divines organize for political work, and propose to ask Archbishop Corrigan to serve on the committee which they appoint, to make their move politically effective. In the same State the fashionable watering-place preachers gathered at Saratoga, get together in a meeting and pass a motion commissioning the National Reform Association to secure if possible a basis of agreement with the Roman Catholic authorities, by which the public schools of the nation shall be given into the control of the Roman Church wherever the Catholics are in the majority.
Yes, indeed, Protestants are becoming decidedly familiar with the intermeddling of Rome with politics. As greedy as these Protestant leaders are of political power, it is evident that they will be apt pupils, and under the tutorship of Archbishop Riordon, Archbishop Corrigan, Cardinal Gibbons, and the “Roman Catholic authorities” generally, we may rest perfectly assured that this familiarity will be rapidly and vastly increased. Nor does this familiarity at all seem to breed contempt on the part of these Protestant preacher-politicians; it seems rather to increase their admiration for the “well-favored harlot.”

Not the Church’s Business.

SOME time ago a prohibition paper quoted a lot of statistics concerning the last presidential election, and made the following comment and calculation:—
“There are in the United States 15,210,141 church members. The vote for President in 1884 was . . . St. John, 151,809, or about 10 to 1,000 church membership. Had the church been united on the question of prohibition it might have polled instead . . . about 3,042,028 votes.”
To this the Interior, in its issue of March 24, 1887, responded as follows:—
“This is very pretty arithmetic, no doubt, but it offers no help to prohibition. When telegraph wires can carry merchants’ circulars with samples of goods inclosed, then may ‘the church’ be expected to bear the burdens of statesmanship. ‘The church’ is so handy—for tired people to growl at. Every energetic soul with a scheme for the public good on hand, wants ‘the church’ to load up with his particular cargo. The church wasn’t made for this sort of business. As well might the victim of pneumonia ask his heart to pull him through by doing his breathing for him, or the bankers in time of panic whine because the public-school system does not go to work to restore public confidence. A pretty mess these well-meaning but inconsiderate reformers would make of it—mixing up the nation’s brains and bowels in this fashion! ‘The church’ has one business in relation to the commonwealth, and one only—to produce a high type of manhood. Statesmanship belongs to an entirely different department of public effort. We sympathize deeply with the temperance cause, and we spare no pains to advocate prohibition; but we are bound to say that a census of church members’ votes in any particular issue is a piece of intolerable impertinence; and it will be a cold day both for the church and for prohibition when the church can be counted as solid for any prohibition candidate or party organization. We propose to reach the prohibition goal, but we are not going to do it by fetching our heels and head together and turning ourselves into a rolling hoop for demagogues to drive with their little sticks.”
We like the style of the Interior’s remarks. They are refreshing, and will do to refer to at some future time. Nevertheless we are morally certain that the Interior will erelong perform the very gymnastic feat which it now scouts. A little time will work great changes.

THE AMERICAN SENTINEL,

AN EIGHT-PAGE MONTHLY JOURNAL,

DEVOTED TO THE DEFENSE OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS, THE PRESERVATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS IT IS, SO FAR AS REGARDS RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS TESTS, AND THE MAINTENANCE OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS.
It Will ever Be Uncompromisingly Opposed to Anything Tending Toward a

UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE,

Either in Name or in Fact.
It will discuss subjects of the deepest interest to all American citizens, and every position taken will be fortified by sound argument.
Terms: Fifty cents per year, post-paid; sample copies free.
If you will send us the names of two new subscribers at fifty cents each, we will send you the paper one year free, or in clubs of five or more copies we will send the papers at the rate of thirty cents each per year.
We will send the AMERICAN SENTINEL one year, and any book mentioned below, post-paid, for the price named opposite the book. Or they can be obtained from any State T. and M. Society.
"Practical Manual of Hygiene and Temperance," - - $1 00 "Revised Version of the New Testament," - - - 1 00 "The Life of Christ" (800 pp.), by C. Geikie, D. D., - - - 1 00 "The United States in Prophecy," - - - - - 1 00 "The Coming Conflict in this Country," - - - - 1 00 "The Constitution Amendment, the Sunday Law and the Sabbath Question," - - - - - 1 25 "The Atonement in the Light of Nature and the Revelation," by J. H. Waggoner, - - - - 1 25 "Our Country—the Marvel of Nations," its Past, Present, and Future, by Uriah Smith, - - - - - 1 35 The Pacific Health Journal, a 32-page monthly magazine of Hygiene and Temperance, one year, - - - - - 1 35 "The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan," over 20 full-page illustrations, popular edition, - - 1 75
Address, PACIFIC PRESS, Publishers 1059 Castro St., Oakland, Cal.

HEALDSBURG COLLEGE,

HEALDSBURG, CAL.

A MODEL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION,

ESTABLISHED IN 1882.

FIVE YEARS OF GREAT PROSPERITY BECAUSE FOUNDED ON SOUND PRINCIPLES. LABOR COMBINED WITH STUDY.
Four courses of instruction, classical, scientific, biblical, and normal; also preparatory instruction given in a primary and a grammar course.
Instruction thorough and practical, not only in the collegiate courses but especially so in the preparatory courses.
Discipline rigid, yet parental, combined with strong moral and religious influences.
Expenses moderate. The whole cost to the student for tuition, board, lodging, lights, washing,—all expenses except for books and clothes, from $16 to $22 per month of four weeks.
Spring term begins January 3, 1888. For descriptive catalogue and further information address the principal,
W. C. GRAINGER, Healdsburg, Cal.

VIEWS OF NATIONAL REFORM.

_PACKAGE NO. 1, 184 PAGES, 20 CENTS._
This package contains thirteen tracts treating upon the various phases of the National Reform movement, as follows:—
NO. PAGES
1. Religious Legislation 8
2. Religious Liberty 8
3. National Reform and the Rights of Conscience 16
4. The American Papacy 16
5. Bold and Base Avowal 16
6. National Reform is Church and State 16
7. Purity of National Religion 8
8. The Salem Witchcraft 8
9. What Think Ye of Christ? 8
10. National Reformed Constitution and the American Hierarchy 24
11. The Republic of Israel 8
12. National Reformed Presbyterianism 32
13. The National Reform Movement an Absurdity 16
The above package will be sent post-paid to any address for twenty cents.
Address, AMERICAN SENTINEL, Oakland, Cal.

The Sunday-Law Methods

By Editor

In this number of the SENTINEL we have shown how the representative California preachers proposed to secure from the Legislature the passage of a “civil” Sunday law. We confess that it does not present them in a very enviable light, but we can’t help that, it is a simple statement of the facts in the case. Yet these men are no worse than the representative ministers in any other State in the Union. We have, for instance, the minutes of the Preachers’ Convention, held for the same purpose precisely, in Elgin, Ill., last November, and they reach their point in the same way. The thing is fast becoming universal, and the methods are all of a piece. The trouble is that in this they are all working for legislation upon a matter that is wholly religious, and which every argument that they make proves to be wholly religious, while they try to cover it all up with the word “civil;” but the covering is too narrow for them to wrap themselves in it.

What Does it Mean ?

WHAT means this almost universal uprising over the question of “How shall our American Christian civil Sunday sabbath be preserved?” Large Conventions of ecclesiastics are held solely to discuss this question. The W. C. T. U. works it up all over the United States. Prohibition Conventions put it in their platforms. The leading preachers and lecturers of the Nation discuss it from pulpit and platform. Legislatures, both State and National, from beginning to end of their sessions, are petitioned for the enactment of stringent laws in its behalf. The religious papers of the country lift up one united cry that it must and shall be preserved. Knights of Labor, and workingmen’s unions, and socialists, call loudly for laws enforcing its observance. Political Conventions are “worked” and Legislatures are “lobbied” in the interests of the Christian Sunday. Saloon-keepers enforce laws for its observance. Only a few years ago there was no sign of any such thing, and even those who now make the most of it, then insisted that it was one of the least of the questions that concerned religion. But now, instead of its being the least and most incidental of the questions of religion, it is by their own confession the greatest and most urgent of all.
Now, instead of the question of how to reach the masses with the gospel being the greater, that question must take a back seat, while there comes to the front the universal demand for stringent Sunday laws strictly enforced, that by this means the masses may be reached. Now instead of the questions of infidelity and atheism taking the far greater precedence, it has come to this, that if you don’t favor Sunday laws you are an infidel, and if you oppose them you are an atheist. Now, instead of the questions of infidelity and atheism taking precedence, it has come to pass that the question of the Sunday sabbath is made the test of fidelity and theism. Yet in “demanding” laws to compel everybody to observe the day, and submit to the test, they will gravely argue that the movement is entirely civil, and that there is nothing religious about it.
What, then, does all this mean? It means that, through this question of compulsory Sunday observance, the civil power is to be subordinated to the ecclesiastical in these United States. We know that this statement will be pooh-poohed by many, and especially by those who are working for it, but in making the statement we but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. This is precisely the way in which the civil power was subordinated to the religious, in the fourth century, out of which came the tyranny of the Papacy; and both time and events will shortly demonstrate that we state the exact truth. Therefore, without hesitation, we lift up our voice against the whole scheme. To laugh at the fears of the SENTINEL will not avert the evil. To despise its warnings is only to rivet your own chains. In perfect sincerity the AMERICAN SENTINEL adopts the memorable words, “I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard.”

The National Reform Sunday

THERE is no question that is growing faster in the United States to-day than is the Sunday question. It is coming nearer and nearer to the point where it will be an essential factor in the political field. And the Christian Nation announces the intention of it all, thus:—
“Let those who will remember the Sabbath to keep it holy from motives of love and obedience; the remnant must be made to do so through fear of law. We have no option.” —Christian Nation, September 28, 1887.
This is the National Reform version of the fourth commandment.

The Motives for Law Enforcement

A good many people imagine that they love law and order, when they do not. It is a fact that many, indeed the great majority of men, are perfectly indifferent as to whether or not the laws are enforced, so long as they themselves do not suffer by their violation. Laws are enforced in this country principally from selfish motives, and not from a love of justice. There is not an abhorrence of evil because it is evil. Men will make an outcry against a crime which involves their interest, and will excuse the same if they are in no way concerned.

Catholic Schools and Public Money

On Sunday, October 23, the corner-stone of a Catholic college was laid in Oakland. After the ceremony, Rev. Joseph Sasia, of the Jesuit college in San Francisco, delivered a sermon on education, in which, as a matter of course, he referred to the fact that Catholic schools and churches are taxed, and that the Government does not give Catholic schools a share of the public money, and then said: “We earnestly believe that, by the blessing of Providence, our grievances will be redressed, and our just claims shall justly prevail.” If the obsequiousness with which the Catholic Church is treated by the press, both political and religious, is any just indication, we may well believe that the priest will not have to wait long to see his desire fulfilled.
Continue reading: Religion and State Distinction