Our National Reform friend, Mr. N. R. Johnston, takes us to task for printing the article in the SENTINEL No. 28, under the above heading. He says:—
“Your editorial under this head is wrong because it is all based upon a wrong definition of blasphemy. You follow the writings of civilians who know no more than you should know—and not so much. Watson says, ‘There can be no blasphemy where there is not an impious purpose to derogate from the divine Majesty and to alienate the minds of others from the love of God. The blasphemer is no other than the calumniator of almighty God.’ Such an act is a most heinous sin against God, and against man, against government and against its divine author, and therefore should not be tolerated but punished.”
We knew at the time that the full definition of blasphemy was not given. The object of the article was to expose the evil of that part of the definition which makes blasphemy consist of speaking against the accepted religion. For that reason we did not quote the definition in full, reserving that part of it for another article which Mr. Johnston’s communication demands, but which would have appeared soon even though he had not written. We quote it from the same authority from which we quoted the other; that is, “Cooley’s Constitution of Limitations.” He says:—
“Blasphemy has been defined as consisting in speaking evil of the Deity with an impious purpose to derogate from the divine majesty and to alienate the minds of others from the love of God.”
It is seen that this definition is in substance the same as that quoted by Mr. Johnston from Watson, and therefore the distinction which he would make between the writings of civilians and those of theologians on this point, is not valid. The later part of the definition involves the speaking against the accepted religion, because when a government forbids anybody from speaking so as to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God, it has to set up some form of governmental idea of God. Such governmental idea can be only that which is held by the majority in the government. And for anybody to speak in such a way as to alienate the minds of those people from that governmental idea of God, is necessarily held by such government to be blasphemy. The Russian system is a case in point in which this principle appears in its perfect baldness. As it prohibits the speaking in any such way as to turn anybody’s mind from the accepted religion, whoever does so is guilty of blasphemy and incurs the penalty of forfeiture of all civil rights and banishment to the most remote parts of Siberia. Any such system as that is as wicked as blasphemy itself.
Our object in this article, however, is not to defend the previous article, but to examine the merits of the other part of the definition of blasphemy not noticed in that, and that is, of its consisting in speaking with an impious purpose to derogate from the divine Majesty. We should like for our correspondent or anybody else to explain how any man’s speaking against God can derogate from the divine Majesty. The majesty of Jehovah does not consist in what men give to him. He is the eternal God, and is eternal and infinite in majesty as well as in every other attribute. Then what men may or may not do cannot affect his majesty to the slightest possible degree. If all men on the earth were, to-day, to break out in the most hideous possible reviling of the Lord, that couldn’t affect his majesty in the least. It would cause the further degradation of the men themselves and lessen their own dignity; but it couldn’t affect the dignity of God nor degrade him. Before there ever was a man or intelligent creature God had all the majesty that he has now and all that he ever will have, and he would have had that majesty had man never been created.
The creation of all intelligent creatures was not with the proud, selfish purpose of building himself up, or of increasing his dignity; but it was out of love to them, that they might have the joy of eternal joy in his presence. And all these intelligences ever can do is either in gratitude to him to enjoy eternally the blessedness of that joy, or by sin to rob themselves of it. If any choose to rob themselves of it, as many have, that does not in the least derogate from the divine majesty. If any choose to enjoy it, as untold myriads have chosen, that does not add any to his majesty. He is the self-existing One. Complete in himself, in every perfection, and nothing ever can derogate from his divine majesty. Therefore such a definition of blasphemy expressing such an idea of the Deity as that he can be robbed of his divine majesty is in itself blasphemy.
The truth is, that the idea expressed in these definitions of blasphemy is wholly pagan. It is becoming only to man-made gods, as all but Jehovah have ever been. The gods of the heathen have always been only such as the heathen themselves made. When men make a god it is evident on the face of it that all the majesty which that god can ever have is such as those men can give to him. Therefore the more worshipers that god has the more majesty he has; the fewer worshipers, the less majesty; consequently, when anybody should speak against those gods in a way to lessen men’s reverence for them, this was to derogate from their majesty.
If, for instance, one of these gods had fifty thousand worshipers, he had, comparatively, a good deal of majesty; but if twenty-five thousand of these worshipers should turn against him, he would only have half as much majesty as he had before; and if all his worshipers should turn against him he would have no majesty at all. This legal definition of blasphemy, and those who defend it, do therefore put Jehovah, the self-existent One, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,—they do put him upon a level with all the heathen gods as one who derives his majesty from men, and one from whose majesty the words and actions of men can derogate. And as real blasphemy is to attribute to God that which is contrary to his nature, and does not belong to him, or to deny what does; and as the legal definition of blasphemy does both of these; it is demonstrated that the legal definition of blasphemy is in itself blasphemous.
But it is asked, Did not Jehovah himself forbid blasphemy and punish it? Yes, he did and he does yet. But he never did forbid it because he is afraid he will lose some of his majesty. Not at all. He forbids it because it is sin; because it is wickedness; because it is rebellion against divine authority. And this is why it is that when civil governments undertake to punish it, they usurp the authority of God. In all the statute books on this subject it is treated as an offense against God, which only argues that the Lord is not capable of dealing with offenses against himself; that therefore the government must take it upon itself to help him. This is only again to come down to the pagan idea and put him upon a level with all the man-made gods who are incapable of dealing with offenders.
There is an old lesson upon this subject which we would sincerely commend to the careful study of judges, jurists, lawyers, and National Reformers. It is recorded in the sixth chapter of Judges. Israel had fallen into idolatry and were overrun by the Midianites. Gideon was called of the Lord to save Israel from the hand of the Midianites. The great majority of the people of his own city, and even his father, were worshipers of Baal. Gideon was directed to throw down the altar of Baal and cut down the Asherah that was by it, and build an altar unto the Lord, and take a young bullock and offer it for a burnt offering and to burn it with the wood of the Baalim which he had dethroned. And because there were so many of the idol worshipers there, he did not dare to do it in the day time and did it at night. When the people arose the next morning, and went out to worship, they found their gods were destroyed. Somebody had derogated immensely from the majesty of Baal. Such a thing as that could not be suffered. They set on foot a diligent investigation to discover the one who had so wickedly blasphemed. “And when they inquired and asked, they said, Gideon the son of Joash hath done this thing. Then the men of the city said unto Joash, Bring out thy son, that he may die, because he hath cast down the altar of Baal, and because he hath cut down the grove that was by it.” And Joash said unto all that stood against him, “Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be put to death whilst it is yet morning: if he be a god, let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his altar.”
The one, recognizing only such gods as they make themselves, whose gods only derive their majesty from men and have only such as men give them; the other, recognizing a living and self-existent God yet usurps his authority and his prerogative. The government of the United States, with which that of all the States should be put in harmony, is distinct from both these and by its Constitution absolutely forbidding religious tests, and religious legislation, stands in harmony with the word of Jehovah, the living and true God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of sinners, whose majesty is his own, eternal and infinite, and never can be derogated from; and who can deal with offenders without any of the jury-meddling mediumship of earthly governments.270A. T. J.
The Puritan Theocracy.
By A. T. J.
MR. JOHN FISK has lately published a book on the “Beginnings of New England, or the Puritan Theocracy in its Religious and Civil Liberty.” He well and abundantly shows what it would seem no one in these days should be disposed to deny, that is, that “the faults of the Puritan theocracy, which found its most complete development in Massachusetts, are so glaring that it is idle to seek to palliate or explain them away,” and that the aim of the Puritans “in coming to Massachusetts was the construction of a theocratic State which should be to Christians under the New Testament dispensation all that the theocracy of Moses and Joshua and Samuel had been to the Jews in Old Testament days.” Pp. vi and 146. Such truths, however, are not acceptable to some Calvinists even at this day. The Interior objects to this and criticises the theory. It cites the dedication of the national monument a short time ago at Plymouth, and says that in that, “no such ideas found expression or even an indorsement by implication,” and that “further and more definitely the orator at the dedication took issue with the historian by declaring that these devout emigrants did not believe in a theocratic State any more than a secularized church.”
The orator referred to was the Hon. W. C. P. Breckinridge, member of Congress from Kentucky and a member of the Presbyterian Church.
The Interior quotes from the orator the following words:—
“No historian has given to those who first suffered for the sublime truth, that human freedom was impossible except by the separation of Church and State, that place of eminence which is by right theirs. This is the truth to which the pilgrim fathers testified. This truth they first brought to America; this is their true honor; this their fadeless crown. The company ‘which came over in the Mayflower’ was of the Calvinistic Protestant Church. Its peculiarity was that it was a separatist church. It was purely English. It differed from the Catholic and English Church, and its fundamental and irreconcilable difference from the English Church was that the whole difference between the churches was a difference in belief? It is not true that they held that the Church is a voluntary spiritual association to be governed only by the laws of Christ and entirely free as a Church from the domination of the State. But it is not true that they believed or held in any way that the State should be free from the domination of the Church, and that is just what makes the half truth.”
In stating a people’s belief in the separation of Church and State, it is not enough to say that they do not believe in the churches being free from the domination of the State. To state the whole truth in such a case, it must be said that they do not believe in the domination of the State by the Church. There is a union of Church and State when the Church dominates the State as certainly as there is when the State dominates the Church. And in talking of a theocracy it is not at all a correct expression of a separation of Church and State to say that the Church is free from the domination of the State.
Properly speaking, the domination of the Church by the State is not a theocracy. A theocracy is only where the religious element dominates the civil. And when speaking of a theocracy the only correct statement of a belief in the separation of Church and State is to say that it is a belief in the total separation of religious and civil things; that the religious shall not interfere with, nor control, nor use the civil power for its own purposes in anything.
In the line of its own criticism and of the above thought of the orator, the Interior says:—
“The interference of a temporal ruler with spiritual matters or the holding of a church service under State authority and patronage becomes intolerable to those who have conceived the thought of worshiping God according to the dictates of their own consciences.”
That is all true. And in addition to this it is also true that the interference of a spiritual ruler with civil matters, or the holding of State service under Church authority and direction, is intolerable to those who have conceived the thought of worshiping God according to the dictates of their own consciences, as well as to those who have conceived the thought of not worshiping God at all.
The truth of this whole subject is expressed in these three sentences: The State dominating religion and using religion for State purposes is the pagan idea. Religion denominating the State and using the civil power for religious purposes is the papal idea. The total clear-cut and distinct separation of religion and the State, as the United States Constitution has it, is the Christian idea.
A. T. J.
What Next in the Fight for Religious Liberty?
By John O. Corliss
New and startling developments in the work of those whose efforts threaten the religious liberty of our Nation, tell us that they do not think for a moment of giving over the struggle as long as they have a single opponent in the field. They are tireless in their exertions and free with their means, to secure influence and patronage. Every expedient within their reach is being utilized to the furtherance of their ends.
First, they send a general agent into every State and Territory, to work up conventions, to which the local clergy are invited and there instructed. These, in turn, go to their respective churches, and work up the matter, by organizing local societies. The members of these societies are not only expected to sign a petition to Congress for a Sunday-Rest bill, but are also expected to interest all others in that work by putting reading matter into their hands.
This is the work they have been engaged in since Congress adjourned last March. Their activity in the matter shows that they do not consider their cause a hopeless one, by any means. On the other hand, their earnestness means that when Congress assembles the coming winter, they intend to be fully organized for effective work, and to have many millions of petitions to Congress in behalf of a Sunday bill.
When Congress adjourned last spring, the friends of the Blair bill sent out the following: “Congress has adjourned, but not without giving the petitioners a good omen, by ordering the publication of 42,000 copies of the hearing upon it. . . . The gathering of signatures and indorsements to the petitions should not be abated in the least.” From this it is plain that instead of feeling that their previous work was a failure, they believe it was a success, and are working with might and main to be prepared to carry the matter through the coming session of Congress.
More than this, Mr. Crafts said in the presence of the writer this summer, that Mr. Blair had consented to revise his rest bill and make it more stringent, according to the request of the friends of the bill, and that when it came up again, it would be more in accordance with their minds. The writer also heard Mr. Blair say that all the testimony taken last winter for and against his bills would be available in the next Congress. These things are stated to show the reader that none of the friends of that measure consider the Sunday bill dead.
Many of the leading politicians of the country are of the opinion that a special session of Congress will be called next November. This is one month earlier than it usually meets. In this case, the friends of Sunday legislation will be on hand fully organized, and have a bill brought up as early in the session as they can, and then stay by to push it as fast as possible. This is the end they are working to, and the friends of religious liberty ought to be on the alert to enlighten the masses, and check as far as possible such movements.
J. O. CORLISS.
The Method of Manliness.
FRANCIS MURPHY, of Pittsburg, is one of the greatest of the temperance apostles of our day. From a recent address we quote this passage: “It is time for the church of God to pause and cease running to the Legislature to save them from their sins. Acts of the Legislature, like Moses, always die within sight of the promised land. This is an age of reason, of thought, of education. A man who doesn’t drink liquor because he cannot get it does not deserve any praise. A man who does not steal because he has no opportunity deserves no praise as an honest man. Every brave man who has stood up under the sky has been developed in the face of great temptation.” It is singular indeed that there should be persons of intelligence who suppose that temperance is the restraint of law, not self-control.—Oregonian.
Sunday-Law Leaders and Christian Meekness
THE warlike notes are not sung by Rev. M. A. Gault only. At the Washington Sunday-law Convention, Rev. T. A. Fernley exclaimed, “While there is breath in our bodies, and a drop of blood in our veins, we will never give up the Sabbath [Sunday].” And these are the professed leaders of the followers of Him who teaches all his disciples to be meek and lowly.
Advertisements.
ADVERTISING RATES made known on application. No advertisement of patent medicines, novelties, cigars, tobacco, liquors, novels or anything of a trivial, intemperate, immoral or impure nature accepted. We reserve the right to reject ANY advertisement.
Civil Government and Religion.
By A. T. Jones
BY A. T. JONES
One of the Editors of the American Sentinel.
Scriptural, Logical, Plain and Forcible.
This important work shows clearly the relation that should exist between Church and State at the present time, as proven by the Bible and history of the past twenty-five centuries.
“CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION”
Is a pamphlet of 176 large octavo pages. Price 25 cents. Millions of copies should be placed in the hands of thinking people AT ONCE. It clearly defines what position we, as American citizens, should sustain toward the effort now on foot to secure religious legislation. Address:
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO.,
12th and Castro Sts., Oakland, Cal.
Or 43 Bond Street, New York.
TEN LECTURES
By John Harvey Kellogg
— ON —
NASAL CATARRH,
Its Nature, Causes, Prevention and Cure, and Diseases of the Throat, Eye and Ear, due to Nasal Catarrh; with a chapter of Choice Prescriptions
BY J. H. KELLOGG, M. D.,
Medical Superintendent of the Largest Medical and Surgical Sanitarium in the World.
The work consists of 120 pages, and is embellished with a colored frontispiece and
Six Beautifully Colored Plates,
Besides many illustrative cuts of the throat and nasal cavity in health and disease.
This little work costs only 30 cents, and is in great demand.
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO.,
Or 43 Bond St., N. Y. Oakland, Cal.
West Shore Railroad
N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. Lessee.
The Picturesque Route for Business and Pleasure Travel.
“SUMMER EXCURSIONS,” a handsomely illustrated book, giving description of the Hudson River, Catskill Mountains, Saratoga and other New York State resorts, will be mailed on receipt of five cents in postage stamps.
For tourist books, time-tables and information regarding West Shore Railroad, call on or address H. B. JAGOE, General Eastern Passenger Agent, 363 Broadway, or C. E. LAMBERT, General Passenger Agent, 5 Vanderbilt Ave., New York.
A POOR FOUNTAIN PEN
IS A NUISANCE;
But a Good One is a Joy Forever.
We carry a full stock of the best makes of fountain pens, and feel sure we can suit the most fastidious.
Remit $2.50 and with it send a sample of the steel pen which suits you best, and we will send you a fountain pen that will give you satisfaction. It is so convenient to have a pen which is always ready, and which can be used as easily as a lead pencil.
Give us a trial order. Pens sent by registered mail. The trade supplied. Address,
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO.,
Or 43 Bond St., N. Y., Oakland, Cal
Pacific Business College
PACIFIC Business College,
320 Post St., S. F.
Life Scholarship, $75
Send for Catalogue.
Moral and Scientific Companion
MORAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMPANION, Florence, Arizona; illustrated, wide-awake; 25c per year. Ads 1c. per word.
THE National Sunday Law.
Argument by Alonzo T. Jones, in behalf of the rights of American citizens, and in opposition to the Blair Sunday-Rest Bill, which Mr. Jones presented before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, December 13, 1888. Dr. Crafts has pronounced the report as published.
“Mighty Interesting Reading.”
And Mr. Jones’s comments will make it more so. His argument is enlarged to what it would have been without Senator Blair’s interruptions, objections, and counter-arguments, and is accompanied with answers to all of his objections and counter-arguments.
As the Sunday question is now a living issue, this treatise will be interesting to all classes, especially Legislators, Lawyers, Judges, and other public men. The argument is based on scripture and history, constitution and law, showing the limits of the civil power, the unconstitutionality of the Sunday Bill, an analysis of the Sunday Laws and other religious legislation of the different States, the Sunday Law movement of the fourth century, the Sunday Law movement of the nineteenth century, the methods used in securing indorsements to the petition for the Blair Bill, and the workings of such Sunday laws as are proposed for the United States.
The work contains 293 pages and will be sent postpaid on receipt of 25 cents.
Send for it! Read it! Send it to your Friends!
Address all orders to
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO.,
12th and Castro Sts., Oakland, Cal.
Or 43 Bond Street, New York.
Smiths’ Diagram
OF PARLIAMENTARY RULES.
A lucid and interesting treatise on Parliamentary usages. By a simple map, with converging lines, it shows the relation of any one motion to every other motion, and at a glance answers over five hundred questions in regard to parliamentary matters. A very ingenious and useful arrangement.
The N. Y. Independent says: “Smith’s Diagram of Parliamentary Rules” is an admirably ingenious simplification of the confused matter of parliamentary practice. Mr. U. Smith has put more of the essence of parliamentary practice into small space and lucid order than we find in any other manual.”
Breast-pocket size, 34 pages, bound in muslin. Price, 50 cents. Send for a copy.
Pacific Press Publishing Company,
OAKLAND, CAL.
NEW NUMBERS OF
By Editor
The Sentinel Library.
We are pleased to announce the following new numbers in the SENTINEL LIBRARY.
No. 16. A Lutheran View of the National Reform Movement. Price 3 cents.
No. 17. Religion and the Public Schools. Price 4 cents.
No. 18. The National Sunday Law. Price 25 cents.
Sample copies of the above sent postpaid on receipt of price.
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO.,
43 Bond St., N. Y. OAKLAND, CAL.
SOCIAL PURITY
By J. H. Kellogg
A vigorous and stirring address on SOCIAL PURITY by J. H. KELLOGG, M. D., SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LARGEST MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SANITARIUM IN THE WORLD. Fifth edition. Fiftieth thousand. Also contains a “Talk to Girls,” by MRS. E. E. KELLOGG, A. M., Associate Superintendent of Social Purity Department of the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. This talk is full of helpful suggestions to mothers and their daughters respecting the means of promoting the development of a higher type of womanhood in the rising generation of girls. A copy should be placed into the hands of every man, woman and youth. 64 large octavo pages. Price, 15 cents; 20 copies, post-paid, $2.25. Address: PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO., Oakland, Cal.
No Text Provided
THE GRANDEST BOOK
—ON THE—
GRANDEST SUBJECT!
And Within the Reach of All.
We have just issued a special “TOURISTS’ EDITION” of our grand book entitled,
IN THE HEART OF THE SIERRAS
[YO SEMITE.—“Its meaning is, according to the very best authorities, a large or full-grown, grizzly bear; and is pronounced Yo Sem-i-te.”—In the Heart of the Sierras, page 58.]
The Yo Semite Valley
AND BIG TREE GROVES OF CALIFORNIA.
The most authentic and most intensely interesting description of this wonderful region ever written.
It is the same size page and contains everything that our elegant Subscription Edition does, except the artotype plates. It is printed on a fine quality of thinner paper, bound in flexible cloth binding, and makes a beautiful book. It contains nearly 500 pages of text and
OVER ONE HUNDRED ILLUSTRATIONS
and portrays by aid of the artist’s genius and the author’s facile pen the lofty mountains and charming valleys, the placid lakes and thundering cataracts, of the world-renowned Yo Semite. The mission of this work is to make the best possible representation of the marvelous scenery and sublime natural wonders of this unique region.
PRICE, $1.50 PER COPY.
Read what Others Say of it:—
“Many books have been written about the glorious and wondrous story of the Sierras. But it seems to me that this scholarly and venerable pioneer, who was publishing an illustrated magazine devoted largely to the themes he celebrates, when many of the younger authors were still at their nurse’s knee, is the one man who is entitled, by his culture, his fine tastes, and, above all, his long and wonderful experience, to write the one great and responsible authority about the Heart of the Sierras.”—JOAQUIN MILLER, the Noted Author and Correspondent.
“The illustrations, the text, the whole atmosphere of the volume, are worthy of their great subject, the Yo Semite—and what could I say more?”—REV. JOSEPH COOK, of Boston.
“It is a truthful, interesting, and instructive work.”—GALEN CLARK, Yo Semite Valley. (For sixteen years the Valley’s Guardian.)
“As might have been expected, Mr. Hutchings’ story of the Valley that he knows and loves so well, is no cold description, but reads with all the charms of a romance.”—San Francisco Hotel Gazette.*
“Those who have not seen Yo Semite cannot do better, short of going to the Valley, than by purchasing Mr. Hutchings’ handsome volume.”—The Sacramento Record-Union.*
In order to place this valuable book—the only one of the kind—within the reach of everybody, we offer this edition at the exceedingly low price of $1.50 per copy, post-paid. Send on your orders quick, while the edition lasts.
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO., Oakland, Cal.Or 43 Bond Street, New York.
Sunday-Law Union Without Workingmen
THURSDAY night and Friday, August 15, 16, there was held in San Francisco a convention to organize a Sunday-law Union for Northern California auxiliary to the National Sunday-law Union. As usual in these meetings great sympathy was professed for the workingman. The workingman was mentioned often. The kind of Sabbath that the workingman needs, was the subject of one of the principal speeches. Yet for all this there was not a workingman there as delegate or as representative from anywhere. There was not a workingman to make a speech in all the convention. There was not a workingman made a member of the Executive Committee, which was large. The only interest the workingmen showed in the convention was to send letters telling the managers that the Sunday-law crusade is “only an effort of their preachers to fill their pews.” It seems strange that a movement that is so universally favored by the workingmen as the Sunday-law managers would have it to be believed this is, should be so doubted and scouted by the workingmen as this is. In other words the facts prove that on this point the claim of the Sunday-law managers is a fraud.
The Sunday Movement and Church-State Union
ONE or two statements which we recently took down from the lips of Mr. Shepard, president of the American Sabbath Union, should be preserved for future reference. One of them was this: “It is useless for anyone to claim that the Sabbath has any rights except as they place themselves on the divine commandment.” This is true in itself. We believe it. We believe that the only basis for Sabbath keeping is the fourth commandment, and that outside of that there is no authority for it. But the fourth commandment does not authorize human governments to make laws enjoining Sabbath observance; and when Colonel Shepard advocates a law compelling Sunday observance, he is doing one of two things; he is either taking himself entirely away from the divine commandment, or he is advocating the putting of the government in the place of God, and making it execute the divine decrees. This is in fact just what he is doing; and by this statement he shows that the Sunday movement is first and last a religious movement, and a movement for the securing of governmental aid to advance certain theories of religion. In other words, he is working for a movement to secure a union of Church and State.
Another thing which Mr. Shepard said, should be remembered, so that he and his fellow-workers may be confronted with it. Said he, “Governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. God is the only lawgiver. His laws are made clear and plain in his word, so that all nations may know what are the laws which God ordained to be kept.”
This statement coming from the chief officer of the American Sabbath Union shows that that association is identical with the National Reform Association, though they have different officers, and different names, and their constitutions are differently worded; the object for which they work is the same, and they are to all intents and purposes one party. It shows that they are working for a theocracy, and that they wish to have the officers of the government stand as the exponents of the divine will. We have no objection to a theocracy, if God himself is the governor, but we would have most serious objections to self-appointed vicegerents of God. Mr. Shepard’s statement shows that he and those allied with him in his work are disloyal to the government of the United States. They are at heart traitors. They traduce the Constitution of the United States, and openly flaunt their disrespect for it.
We are glad that there are still some in this country who are loyal citizens,—men and women who honor the great charter of American liberty,—for we know that with all such people self-styled national reformers can find no sympathy.
Can God’s Blessing Be Forced?
THE president of the American Sabbath Union, Elliott F. Shepard, insists properly enough that if men will keep the Sabbath they will get a blessing. And he also insists that all who do not keep it must be compelled to keep it by a National Sunday law. But will people get that blessing who will not keep it without being compelled to? In other words can you force the blessing of God upon men? and that by civil law?
Protestant Sunday Laws and Rome
THERE is a great cry now by Protestants against the Roman Catholic demand for public money for sectarian use; but the example was first set by Protestants, and Rome is not only quick to learn, but she never forgets. Now, the Protestants are about to set the example of having legislation enforcing the observance of church institutions; and as with the other, so with this, the Roman Catholic power will be quick to learn the trick, and will carry it to an extent little dreamed of by those professed Protestants who demand the evil example that shall be set.
Does the Sabbath Pay?
Two evenings after Mr. Shepard delivered his lecture entitled, “Does the Sabbath pay?” in which he set before the people the pecuniary advantages of Sunday rest, stating that the manufacturer who closed his business on Sunday would make thirty-six per cent. more than the one who worked, we heard the manager of a small railroad say before the same audience that the lecturer had converted him, and that the preceding Sunday was the last Sunday that trains would run on his road. At this the congregation applauded immoderately, and we, remembering the inducements that the redoubtable Colonel had set forth, could only think of the words of an ancient writer: “Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself.”
The Harm of Forced Religion
At the Washington City Sunday-law convention last winter, Dr. Conrad said that “thirteen years ago Berlin had 800,000 inhabitants, now it has double that number, yet only one church has been built in that time, and that is the only church built there in fifty years. The Church has lost her power over the people. Many, though confirmed in the Church, are freethinkers in religion, and as citizens are Socialists.” This is a lesson worth the learning by those statesmen (?) who want religion forced by law into the public schools for the benefit of the State. Such a thing is a damage both to religion and the State.
An Apology to Contributors
By Editor
We have some contributions on hand, which will appear in course of time. That the SENTINEL is too small for the demand upon its columns, is the apology we have to offer to our contributors. We trust it may be otherwise in the near future. But that matter rests somewhat with its patrons.
