So far as Sunday is different from any other day of the week, it is either a holy-day or a holiday. If, therefore, there is to be any legislation concerning the observance of this day, it must be on the ground that it is a holy-day or a holiday.
A holy-day is necessarily a religious or church day. If there were no religion or no church there would be no holy-day. Legislation, therefore, for the observance of Sunday as a holy-day is religious legislation—that is, it is legislation for the establishment of a religious or church observance, and therefore for an establishment of religion itself. But such legislation is absolutely forbidden by the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Madison says that “religion is entirely beyond the purview of government.” Washington says, “In no sense whatever is this Government founded upon the Christian religion.” Jefferson has stated the unconstitutionality of religious legislation. In a letter Jan. 23, 1808, to the Rev. Mr. Millar, he writes:—
Washington, January 23, 1808.—Sir: I have duly received your favor of the eighteenth, and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the Government of the United States87as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that, also, which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general Government. It must, then, rest with the States as far as it can lie in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not, indeed, of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the general Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the object proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.
In his autobiography Jefferson also relates:—
The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had to a certain degree been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and of right. It met with opposition, but with some mutilations in the preamble it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy Author of our religion an amendment was proposed by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and the Muhammadan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.
There is no need of any further quotations to show that any legislation for the Christian, the religious, or the holy observance of Sunday is entirely beyond the legal power of Congress.
Every sentiment and every argument in favor of the observance of Sunday as a Sabbath should therefore have no weight with this committee, or with Congress.
The only possible ground left, therefore, for any legislation as to the observance of Sunday is the fact that it is a holiday or rest-day.
A holiday is for physical recreation; it is a relief from toil; it is for leisure, or rest from ordinary vocations.
What has Congress to do about Sunday legislation, granting that it is a holiday or rest-day?
Simply to recognize it as a holiday—but beyond that the function of the national Government does not extend.
To start right in this discussion I will again quote from Jefferson:—
Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right.
It is the American principle that the government is for the people and not the people for the government. If at any point government infringes upon any natural right at that point its action is null and void.
It is a contradiction in terms to say that in order to uphold the natural rights of any human being, the natural rights of any other human being should be invaded. The exercise of all human rights is perfectly harmonious.
Whatever legislation there is, therefore, for Sunday as a holiday, or rest-day, there must be no infringement upon the natural rights of any human being.
ENFORCED IDLENESS IS TYRANNY.
It is the natural right of every man to labor. Government has no right to forbid labor on Sunday. If one chooses to labor on that day as on any other day it is his right to do so. For government to enforce physical idleness on Sunday is simply tyranny. Physical recreation, physical recuperation, do not necessarily demand physical idleness. A change of physical activity is oftentimes the most healthful physical recreation, or rest.
Government can not enforce idleness any more than it can enforce sleep. As well command a man to sleep all day Sunday as to command him to be idle all day Sunday.
This point is well stated in the decision of the Supreme Court of California:—
This argument—namely, that for the benefit of the working people government should enforce idleness on Sunday—is founded on the assumption that mankind are in the habit of working too much, and thereby entailing evil upon society; and that without compulsion, they will not seek the necessary repose which their exhausted natures demand. This is to us a new theory, and is contradicted by the history of the past and the observations of the present. We have heard in all ages of declamations and reproaches against the vice of indolence; but we have yet to learn that there has ever been any general complaint of an intemperate, vicious, unhealthy, or morbid industry. On the contrary, we know that mankind seek cessation from toil, from the natural influence of self-preservation, in the same manner and as certainly as they seek slumber, relief from pain, or food to appease their hunger. . . . If we can not trust free agents to regulate their own labor, its times and quantity, it is difficult to trust them to make their own contracts. If the legislature could prescribe the days of rest for them, then it would seem that the same power could prescribe the hours to work, rest, and eat.—Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal., 509, 518.
The Constitution of the United States plainly declares the manner in which the national Government should legislate, or rather non-legislate, concerning holidays, or rest-days. In the Constitution, Sunday is recognized as a holiday, or rest-day, and only as such. When a bill has passed both houses of Congress for the signature of the President, the President shall have ten days to consider it, Sundays excepted, says the Constitution. Sunday is not a religious or a Christian word. It is simply the secular name of the day. The Christian term is the “Sabbath,” or “the Lord’s day.” By not using either of these sacred names, but using only the secular name, the framers of the Constitution, beyond question, meant to recognize Sunday as a holiday, or rest-day, only, and not in any sense as a holy-day. The Constitution, therefore, recognizing Sunday as a holiday, how does it regulate its observance? It does not regulate it at all. It leaves the President perfectly free. It gives him the holiday, but it does not command how he shall observe it. It simply allows a privilege. The President can work on Sunday if he chooses; or play; or go to theatres and operas; or hunt and fish; or travel; or stay at home. If the President is a Jew in religion, or a Seventh-day Adventist, or a Seventh-day Baptist, the Constitution does not interfere with his religious convictions. He can keep holy the Saturday and work on Sunday.
This is an admirable example for Congress to follow—shining in the Constitution itself, placed there by the wise and far-seeing founders of this Republic.
The moment Congress legislates concerning the observance of Sunday as a holiday, or rest-day, by forbidding any kind of labor, it violates the religious convictions of many of the people of this country. They conscientiously observe Saturday as a holy-day. What right has the Government to compel them to lose the value of the following day, either on the plea that it is a holy-day or holiday, or rest-day? This is a manifest injustice. Follow the Constitution and no injustice will ever be done.
In giving the appropriation to the World’s Fair, Congress does not undertake to regulate the observance of other holidays far more national, important, and glorious in their significance than the Sunday. It annexes no condition as to the observance of the Fourth of July or Decoration day. Surely, if Congress can leave the due observance of the Fourth of July or Decoration day to the discretion of the World’s Fair Commission, it can also leave the observance of Sunday to the same judgment. Congress does not regulate the expenditure of the millions given to the commission. It has the utmost confidence in the wisdom and integrity of the commission so far as the use of vast sums of money is concerned. Why not leave with the commission the regulation of Sunday? Are the commissioners honest and able six days of the week and inefficient on the seventh day? or the first day? As the Constitution left the observance of Sunday to the President, let Congress be equally wise, just and business-like in its treatment of the commissioners of the World’s Fair—men selected for their pre-eminent fitness to carry on in all respects this magnificent enterprise. This is my argument, therefore, to the committee—that in the very nature of the national Government, and according to the Constitution itself, Congress should not make any laws as to the manner of the observance of holy-days, holidays, or rest-days.
The Sunday, therefore, whether it is a holy-day, or holiday, or rest-day, is entirely outside of congressional enactment. If there is to be any regulation it should be by municipal and local governments.
A Letter from a Lutheran Pastor.
By C. F. W. MEYER
Gar Creek, Ind., Jan. 11, 1893.
EDITOR AMERICAN SENTINEL: Inclosed you will find a postal note, my subscription for the SENTINEL. I have now read your paper for three or four years and like it. I as a Lutheran do not accept all of your teachings but fully endorse your position against a union of Church and State. Our church has resented the attempt in Illinois and Wisconsin, and especially our synod was foremost in the battle. God knows we had rather never entered politics, but politics sought to enter, dominate our church schools, and so it became our sacred duty to take up the gauntlet. We will gladly retire from the political arena, but other issues are at stake and “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” and thus we are forced to do battle again.
I am very glad that the SENTINEL was among the few papers (English papers) that correctly saw and stated our position. One expression, recurring several times38in various numbers of your valuable paper, is too strong. It stated that “the” preachers of Toledo, St. Paul and other cities sought to enforce Sunday laws. The use of the definite article is erroneous, for there are to my certain knowledge in each of the places named preachers of our synod who did not, would not join such a movement, protested against it, refused co-operation, such as use of their churches for these meetings, etc. A more correct way of expressing it would be, “some,” or “certain preachers,” etc. Willingly the SENTINEL would do no injustice, I know, therefore I call attention to it.
I remain very respectfully yours,
C. F. W. MEYER.
Mass-Meeting in Springfield, Ill.
By GEO. B. THOMPSON
THE introduction of resolutions into both houses of the legislature now in session here in Springfield, asking Congress to repeal the Sunday-closing clause of the World's Fair appropriation, stirred up the so-called religious people of the city, and a mass-meeting was called Sunday, January 15, to protest against such action being taken by our legislators. The meeting was held in the First M. E. Church, and although quite generally advertised the “mass” of assembled humanity did not exceed two hundred.
The meeting was called to order by Rev. T. D. Logan, who introduced the following resolutions:—
WHEREAS, Resolutions have been presented in both branches of our State legislature, petitioning Congress to repeal the Sunday-closing condition upon which the sum of $2,500,000 was granted to the Columbian Exposition,
Therefore, we, citizens of Springfield, assembled in mass-meeting, do most respectfully, yet earnestly, protest against any action being taken by the legislature, for the following reasons:—
First—The question of Sunday opening has not been regarded as a matter for State legislative action, and consequently the sentiments of the people have not been generally made known to the members of the legislature. On the other hand, petitions have been sent to Congress in great numbers, including many thousands from the State of Illinois. The action of the last session was taken after mature deliberation; it represents the prevailing sentiment of the people and ought to stand.
Second—It will be a glaring inconsistency for our legislature to petition Congress to do that which would lead to the violation of existing State laws.
Third—An open Fair would lead to the running of special Sunday excursions, which would have a demoralizing influence upon the communities through which they pass, and pour into Chicago largely the vicious elements of society.
Fourth—An open Fair on Sunday will lead to a permanent increase of labor on that day, thus depriving wage-workers of their needed rest, and eventually compelling them to work seven days in order to hold their positions.
Fifth—It would be unpatriotic and un-American, and place us in a false light before the nations of the earth, which will expect us to show respect for national traditions and customs. This we have done in all European expositions by closing our exhibit on Sunday.
Sixth—It would encourage the spirit of anarchy which is even now rife in our large cities, threatening the overthrow of our national institutions.
Seventh—It would ignore the moral and religious elements of this State, inasmuch as they have freely expressed themselves in opposition to an open Fair on Sunday.
Eighth—It would be a violation of the law of God, which is supreme, and the foundation of all civil government. As such it ought to be respected and obeyed by our legislators, “as they that must give account.”
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to each member of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Several speeches followed the reading of these resolutions. Rev. L. McLean, of Chicago, Secretary of the American Sabbath Union, was the chief speaker. He was quite enthusiastic in his remarks. He paid his respects to the directors of the Exposition in scathing language. He did not hesitate to say that they were moved entirely by mercenary motives in asking that the Fair be opened, and that the two and a half millions given by Congress was being used by them in lobbying in favor of the anti-closing movement and paying the expenses of men to go to Washington and labor for its opening. He rang the usual changes about the demoralizing effect of Sunday excursions, etc., if the Fair should be opened on the so-called Lord's day. Said the reverend gentleman, “Open the gates on Sunday and there will be poured into the Fair the infernal element of Chicago, Springfield and other large cities, and those who visit Jackson Park on that day will simply see hell.”
The doctor was followed by Rev. Troxell, pastor of Grace Lutheran church of this city, who in the course of his remarks thanked God for a Christian Chicago and Springfield! The human mind will reflect, and we wondered how these cities could be “Christian,” when according to Dr. McLean, there is an element in them “infernal” enough to manufacture a “hell” out of! And how this can be a “Christian Nation” and we a “Christian people” with such a vicious, depraved people among us.
The resolutions were also spoken to by the pastors of the Presbyterian, Christian and Methodist churches, after which they were adopted by a rising vote.
GEO. B. THOMPSON.
Springfield, Ill.
“A Complete Exhibit of Religions.”
By Bishop Atticus G. Haygood
[This article, by Bishop Atticus G. Haygood, which we abridge from the Nashville Christian Advocate, needs no comment. It is worthy of serious thought.]
THE humbug of our times is the proposed “congress of religions,” to be held in Chicago in connection with the big show in September.
Having discovered Columbus, the American people now propose to manifest themselves to the world. . . . That nothing may be lacking, all the “religions of the world” are summoned to appear, make processions, exhibit inventories, give “reasons for the faith that is in them.” . . . Over this “parliament” of all religions (Anglomaniacs prefer the English term to Congress) much ado is being made by sundry papers—some infidel and some “inclined to piety.” The meeting will be for the most part taken up with palaver, tongue-fence, and brag. Yet the “Son of man” said: “The kingdom of heaven cometh not with observation.” Can even an unbeliever conceive of Him as making out a programme for such a conglomeration of orthodoxies and heresies, infidelities and heathenisms?
A marked copy of a paper, standing for the beliefs and history of the sect called Methodists, sent to this writer, gives a brief, broad statement of the great and “complete exhibit of religions.” This paper says, and many write the same things:—
It is proposed to have in connection with the World's Fair a series of world conventions, representing the chief departments of human knowledge and effort, and the principal one of these will be the congress of religions extending through the month of September, 1893. Halls and churches that will accommodate 30,000 will be found ready for this series of conventions, which will give a complete exhibit of the religious forces now shaping human thought and life. The denominational congress will come first, and will occupy a week or more. Many of the leading denominations of the country have already planned for these. The Congregationalists and Lutherans especially have arranged for these on an immense scale. Then a week has been assigned for the Evangelical Alliance, whose meetings will be of immense interest, etc.
A number of our papers—to say nothing of a conference or two—are in a state of excited sensibility on the subject as a crowd of school girls might be if invited to a swell wedding in a much decorated and very “tony” church. The general superintendents of our church are earnestly called on by resolution and editorial assurance of “general approval” to see to it that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, be represented at the great talking match and general “exhibit of the religions” of all nations.
It is thought by some good people that it would be an irreparable calamity if Southern Methodism should not have a good place in the procession. We also must flaunt banners, beat drums, blow horns, and make other noises to let the world know that we are somewhat ourselves. It is even counted a sort of greenness and narrowness not to see at once that we must be there—making for the eyes and ears of men an “exhibit” of our religion—“to be seen of men.” There was a Teacher once who said terrible things about those who make a show of their piety; but men forget Him and his teaching.
The Chicago management is without bias; all are invited, and upon terms of perfect equality. Protestants and Romanists, State churches and Free churches, Greek Church and Mohammedans, Buddhists and Touists, Trinitarians and Unitarians, Evangelicals and Universalists, Christians and idolaters, all are invited and begged to come. If any have been overlooked there has been no intention to be unfair. The “medicine man” of the Apaches should be there—as good as some of the rest; also the “rain-makers” Rider Haggard describes (from whom General Dyrenforth might get some valuable hints); also the priests of “Darkest Africa.” Why not the voodoo negroes of Louisiana swamps? They could give a trick worth knowing to the Buddhist priests, to say the least of it.
In some way the dead and gone religions should be represented. There might be histrionic substitutes (a sort of pious theatre for church members; even preachers) for priests and teachers of Egypt and Assyria and Phenicia. They might at least build a duplicate of Nebuchadnezzar's lofty statue of Bel-Merodach. The Greek and Roman temples should be reproduced, and learned men, personating the soothsayers, should show the moderns how to predict future events by watching the flight of birds or gazing upon the entrails of a sheep. If the false religions are to be honored, give the dead ones a chance.
And why not ask Herbert Spencer to make an “exhibit” of “agnosticism”?
A “complete exhibit of religions”! Was such a phrase ever penned before? What will be exhibited? Doctrine? Government? Experience? What is there to show? Will they debate doctrine, or settle disputed questions by arbitration? Will they argue about government? or tell experience? or only brag about numbers? If this last, the game is lost by Protestantism to the Romanists, by Christianity to Mohammedanism, by all to bold and dirty heathenism. . . . The whole39conception is preposterous—the gathering of an ecclesiastical menagerie as diverse as that which floated in Noah's Ark.
Why should the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, care for representation there—in that crowd? Why should we be longing for “recognition” at Chicago—in this congress of all sorts, from Methodists down to Asiatic idolaters?
If we will only stand by our work of saving souls; if we will only repent of the worldliness that is spreading among us like a fretting leprosy; if we will only return to the simplicity and earnestness of our Methodism, we need not worry about being in this Chicago game of brag. A thousand revivals of religion—“pure and undefiled”—between now and September, 1893, will be worth more to us than the recognition of all the world.
Dr. Barnes on Sunday Idleness and Vice.
By A. DELOS WESTCOTT
THE purpose of this article is to present the testimony of the eminent Christian and scholar, Dr. Albert Barnes, on this subject. But, that the reader may better appreciate its application at the present time, I desire, before introducing this testimony, to call attention briefly to two facts.
First, it will be conceded by all, that the purpose of Sunday legislation is to compel those to rest on Sunday, who do not want to rest on that day. No person needs a law to compel him to do what he earnestly desires to do; hence, when any individual is forced to keep Sunday, that fact is sufficient evidence that he does not observe it from choice, stimulated by religious conviction, but that he rests because he is compelled to do so against his will.
Second, it is diligently affirmed by those who are working for Sunday laws, that there is no intention of forcing any one to be religious. All that is desired is to compel those to stop work and remain idle, whose religious convictions do not lead them to sacredly regard the day. This, they claim, will insure these people a much-needed physical rest, and give them a chance to attend church should they feel inclined to do so.
But an important question arises in this connection, namely, are these people to be benefited by the provisions of their would-be benefactors? If a person has not enough regard for religion to observe a day without compulsion, will he be likely to go to church and seek the society of those who have compelled him to rest against his will? Every one knows that he would not.
The effect of Sunday statutes, then, is to enforce idleness upon the irreligious; and many affirm that a great blessing will come upon those who come under the influence of these laws. To be sure, we have been taught that “Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do,” that “the criminal classes are largely recruited from the ranks of the idlers,” that “idleness is the mother of vice,” etc.; but the advocates of Sunday laws appear to think that all natural laws are reversed on Sunday; hence, idleness on that day must certainly be a blessing to mankind. This is the point which is so ably answered by Dr. Barnes; and I trust every word will be carefully weighed by the reader. The quotation is from “Barnes’ Practical Sermons,” as follows:—
If we can have a Sabbath, sacred in its stillness and its associations; maintained by a healthful, popular sentiment, rather than by human laws; revered as a day of holy rest, and as a type of heaven; a day when men shall delight to come together to worship God, and not a day of pastime, Christianity is safe in this land, and our country is safe. If not, the Sabbath, and religion, and liberty will die together. . . . . If the Sabbath is not regarded as holy time, it will be regarded as pastime; if not a day sacred to devotion, it will be a day of recreation, of pleasure, of licentiousness.
Since this is to be so, the question is, what is to be the effect if the day ceases to be a day of religious observance? What will be the effect of releasing a population of several millions one-seventh part of the time from any settled business of life? What will be the result if they are brought under no religious instruction? What will be the effect on morals; on religion; on sober habits of industry; on virtue, happiness, and patriotism? Can we safely close our places of business and annihilate all the restraints that bind us during the six days? Can we turn out a vast population of the young with nothing to do, and abide the consequences of such a universal exposure to vice? Can we safely dismiss our young men, all over the land, with sentiments unsettled and with habits of virtue unformed, and throw them one day in seven upon the world with nothing to do? Can we safely release our sons, and our apprentices and our clerks from our employ, and send them forth under the influence of unchecked, youthful passion? Can we safely open, as we do, fountains of poison at every corner of the street, and in every village and hamlet, and invite the young to drink there with impunity? Can there be a season of universal relaxation, occurring fifty-two times in a year, when all restraints are withdrawn, and when the power of temptation shall be piled with all that art and skill can do to lead the hosts in the way to ruin, and to drag them down to hell?
One would suppose that the experiment which has already been made in cities of our land, would be sufficient to remove all doubt from every reasonable mind on this subject. We are making the experiment on a large scale every Sabbath. Extensively in our large cities and their vicinities, this is a day of dissipation, of riot, of licentiousness, and of blasphemy. It is probable that more is done to unsettle the habits of virtue, and soberness, and industry; to propagate infidelity, and to lay the foundation for future repentance or ignominy; to retard the progress of the temperance reformation, and to prepare candidates for the penitentiary and the gallows on this day than on all the other days of the week. So it always is where institutions designed for good are abused. They become as powerful in evil as they were intended to be for good. The Sabbath is an institution of tremendous power for good or evil. If for good, as it is designed, and as it easily may be, it is laid at the foundation of all our peace, our intelligence, our morals, our religion. If for evil, it strikes at all these; nor is there any possible power in laws or in education that can, during the six days, counteract the evils of a Sabbath given to licentiousness and sin.
Every person of candor and intelligence must admit that what Dr. Barnes has said on this subject is the simple, unadulterated truth. And it shows that the observance of a weekly rest-day in this country has increased the amount of immorality and crime to an alarming degree. This is because so many have observed the day from wrong motives and in a wrong way. Everything goes to show that those who do not observe the day to honor God, would be far better off, and the country would be far better off, if they made no recognition of it at all. And this illustrates what has often been said before, that religious institutions in the hands of irreligious people become only the instruments of iniquity and vice.
Shall we then forbid these people to observe a day of rest? Not by any means. But if there is to be found a man who, on Sunday, would rather engage in honest labor than to follow his wicked associates through the haunts of vice, in the name of morality, good government, and public decency, let that man alone.
A. DELOS WESTCOTT.
Waterman’s Ideal Fountain Pen
“I find the most satisfactory pen of its kind,” says Chauncey M. Depew, President of the New York Central R.R., and thousands of others are ready to bear a similar testimony. This pen is simple and yet highly philosophical in its construction. It rarely gets out of order and seldom needs repairs.
The pen-points are fine, medium or coarse, and of all grades of flexibility from soft to very stiff. Any hand can be suited. A full guarantee goes with each and every pen. The cut shows a No. 4 pen (gentleman’s size) reduced about one half in size.
Address all Orders to
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY,12TH & CASTRO STS., 43 BOND ST.,OAKLAND, CAL. NEW YORK.
The closing of the World's Fair on Sunday is a religious question, therefore Congress has no right to legislate upon it.
Abiding Sabbath And Lord's Day
By Alonzo T. Jones
BY ALONZO T. JONES.
A pointed review of the $500 and $1,000 prize essays in support of the Christian Sabbath, so called. Those desiring some $1,000 reasons for keeping the first day of the week, will find them here. 173 pages, 20 cents. Pacific Press, 43 Bond St., New York City.
GOOD HEALTH:
A monthly illustrated journal devoted to health, temperance, and sanitary science, teaches both physical and mental hygienic, and embodies the results of the latest scientific investigation in the direction of the prevention and cure of disease. First-class in every respect, it stands at the head of the journals of its kind throughout the world. It has been established twenty years, and is an acknowledged authority upon all subjects that come within its province, being now more popular than ever before, as its large and increasing subscription list shows. Price $2.00 per year including a companion volume, a 400-page, illustrated book bound in muslin with marbled edges and colored plates, one of the most important and interesting works recently published, in the interest of popular medical education. No family can afford to be without them.
Address Good Health Publishing Co., Battle Creek, Mich.
YOUNG PEOPLES' LIBRARY.
SERIES 1.
Every volume in this library contains choice, wholesome, instructive reading, and, while designed for the young, it will be equally interesting to every member of the family. Each volume has 160 pages, is fully illustrated and substantially bound in fine colored cloth, handsomely embossed in jet and—gold—
Series 1 contains six volumes, which are as follows:—
FIJI AND SAMOA.—Jottings from the Pacific, No. 1.
JACK THE CONQUEROR.
SAVONAROLA, the Florentine Martyr.
THE TONGA ISLANDS AND OTHER GROUPS.—Jottings from the Pacific, No. 2.
LETTERS FROM THE HOLY LAND.
AMONG THE NORTHERN ICEBERGS.
The set, in cloth, in a box, sent post-paid for $3.60; single volumes, 60 cents each; paper, 25 cents.
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY.
12th & Castro Streets,
OAKLAND, CAL.
43 Bond Street,
NEW YORK.
In its issue of the 15th inst., the Christian Patriot has the following, under the heading, “Sunday laws”:—
The question suggested above, the connection of divine and human legislation, is a very live one. For the Seventh-day Adventists, who are quite numerous, maintain an association and a press to urge the repeal of our Sunday laws, the law forbidding worldly work on the Christian Sabbath, because (as they say) they are religious legislation and opposed to the genius of our American institutions and to the word of God. They are alone in this contention. The Seventh-day Baptists and the Jews do not join in their agitation. But what they lack in numbers they make up in zeal.
The Adventists not only say that Sunday laws are religious legislation, but they prove it by the most indubitable evidence. Nor are they alone in their opposition to a State-bolstered religious dogma. While a considerable number of Seventh-day Baptists seem to take but little interest in the question, caring nothing for the wrongs of others so long as they are themselves protected by a clause exempting them, others in that communion are alive to the issue and are one with the Adventists in protesting against all Sunday legislation, as wrong in principle and mischievous in practice.
The Sabbath Outlook, a Seventh-day Baptist monthly, published at Alfred Center, this State, is very outspoken in its opposition to Sunday legislation. We have often quoted from it in the SENTINEL. But this is not a question of numbers but of rights. Sunday laws would be no better than they now are if there was but one person in all the world to protest against them. It would still be true that they are wrong in principle.
THE Churchman should now be “read out of church” by the American Sabbath Union, so-called, for it has endorsed Bishop Potter's declaration in favor of the Sunday opening of the World's Fair. The Churchman says:—
The contribution of the bishop of New York to the discussion in the Forum (October) on “The Opening of the Chicago Fair on Sundays” seemed to us so reasonable, becoming, and, withal, intelligible that we gave in our adhesion to its positions without any wavering or doubtfulness.
Of like questions in England, the Churchman says:—
Exactly similar questions, as to Sunday opening of museums, pleasure grounds, art galleries, and the like have been threshed out in England, decided affirmatively, tried experimentally, and accepted so finally that nothing but a moral revolution can reverse the decision. Bishops and clergy and laymen and nonconformists, in overwhelming majority, support and applaud the result.
In this connection the following news item from the New York World, of the 11th inst., is interesting:—
The managers of the Dore Gallery have now given four Sunday exhibitions, which have been great successes, but notwithstanding this they announce January 15 as the last Sunday the gallery will be open. . . . They only opened for a few Sundays at the earnest solicitation of several well-known clergymen whose schools wished to attend.
If it is all right to open a few Sundays to accommodate certain clergymen, would it be wrong to open every Sunday to accommodate the public? or must one belong to a church in order to be entitled to devote Sunday to sight-seeing?
