IN the prelude to the 201st Boston Monday lecture, Joseph Cook discussed the attitude of the Catholic Church toward the public school. He said:—AMS November 1888, page 81.1

“Roman Catholic authorities wholly deny to civil government the right to conduct the secular education of all the people, and intend to apply to the United States, as soon as the opportunity permits, the same educational principles which have kept the mass of the populations of Roman Catholic countries in a state of intellectual childhood. The Popes have often declared that the toleration of schools not under the control of the Catholic Church is a sin on the part of the civil government.”AMS November 1888, page 81.2

He referred to James Anthony Froude’s statement that in his late visit to the West Indies he held a long conversation with a Catholic ecclesiastic from America, in which the discussion ranged through a long course of history, and he found that on nearly every point they differed as to matters of fact. “And the outcome of the conversation was to open the eyes of the English historian to the fact that the most systematic mutilation of history goes on in the Roman Catholic schools on the American as well as on the European side of the Atlantic.”AMS November 1888, page 81.3

He quoted from the Catholic World these words:—AMS November 1888, page 81.4

“We, of course, deny the competency of the State to educate, to say what shall or shall not be taught in the public schools.”AMS November 1888, page 81.5

And these:—AMS November 1888, page 81.6

“Before God, no man has a right to be of any religion but the Catholic.”AMS November 1888, page 81.7

And from a paper entitled The Catholics of the Nineteenth Century, he quoted this:—AMS November 1888, page 81.8

“The supremacy asserted for the church in matters of education implies the additional and cognate functions of censorship of ideas, and the right to examine and approve, or disapprove, all books, publications, writings, and utterances in-tended for public instruction, enlightenment, or entertainment, and the supervision of places of amusement.”AMS November 1888, page 81.9

And yet this same Joseph Cook is a vice-president of an Association which stands pledged to join hands with Rome whenever she is ready, and gladly to accept co-operation in any way in which she is willing to exhibit it; and to put the Catholic Bible, and Catholic instruction, into the public schools wherever the Catholics are in the majority. In a National Reform Conference held at Saratoga, August 15-17, 1887, during which Joseph Cook made a speech, the corresponding secretary of the National Reform Association, of which Joseph Cook is a vice-president, was asked this question:—AMS November 1888, page 81.10

“If we put the Protestant Bible in the schools where Protestants are in the majority, how could we object to the Douay version [the Roman Catholic Bible] in schools where Roman Catholics are in the majority?”AMS November 1888, page 81.11

And the corresponding secretary answered—“We wouldn’t object.”AMS November 1888, page 81.12

Further along in the proceedings we have the following record:—AMS November 1888, page 81.13

“Rev. Dr. Price, of Tennessee: ‘I wish to ask the secretary, Has any attempt ever been made by the National Reform Association to ascertain whether a consensus, or agreement, could be reached with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, whereby we may unite in support of the schools as they do in Massachusetts?’AMS November 1888, page 81.14

“The secretary: ‘I regret to say there has not ... But I recognize it as a wise and dutiful course on the part of all who are engaged in, or who discuss, the work of education, to make the effort to secure such an agreement.AMS November 1888, page 81.15

“Dr. Price: ‘I wish to move that the National Reform Association be requested by this conference to bring this matter to the attention of American educators and of Roman Catholic authorities, with a view of securing such a basis of agreement if possible.’AMS November 1888, page 81.16

“The motion was seconded and adopted.”AMS November 1888, page 81.17

That is what the National Reform Association is pledged and commissioned to do; Joseph Cook took an active part in that same conference; and he is yet a vice-president of that Association, exerting his influence for its success. In view of these facts Joseph Cook’s position is rather “amphibious.” His Boston Monday lecture compared with his official connection with this Association reveals a course which, to say the least, is highly inconsistent.AMS November 1888, page 81.18

Note, in the above quotation they propose to secure this agreement with the Catholics “in support of the schools as they do in Massachusetts.” Upon this the action of the Catholic school board of Boston in banishing from the Boston schools Swinton’s “Outlines of History,” is a most telling comment. That is how the Catholics unite with Protestants (?) in support of the schools in Massachusetts; and that is just how the National Reform Association—Joseph Cook a vice-president—proposes that the Catholics shall unite with Protestants throughout the Nation. In other words, that association proposes to hand over the American public-school system, as far as possible, to the Catholic Church.AMS November 1888, page 81.19

But Mr. Cook proposes a remedy for this “Roman Catholic aggression,” which he, as vice-president of the National Reform Association, is helping forward; and it is this:—AMS November 1888, page 81.20

“We must teach in the common schools, in an unsectarian way, the broad, undisputed principles of morals and religion as to which good men agree, and thus stop the mouths of those who say that the American common schools may be justly called godless.”AMS November 1888, page 82.1

That is, he will cure the disease either by increasing it, or by introducing another not quite so bad at first, but with the moral certainty that it will soon grow fully as bad.AMS November 1888, page 82.2

Teach in the schools, says Mr. Cook, those “principles of morals and religion as to which good men agree;’ that is, the “good men” of all denominations, of course, because the teaching is to be wholly unsectarian. And these good men would certainly be the representative men of the different denominations, as Dr. Schaff, in telling what parts of the Bible should be taught, says:—AMS November 1888, page 82.3

“A competent committee of clergymen and laymen of all denominations could make a judicious selection which would satisfy every reasonable demand.”AMS November 1888, page 82.4

That gives it wholly to the church to say what shall or shall not be taught in the public schools; and that is precisely the declaration of the Catholic Church as quoted from the Catholic World by Joseph Cook himself. If Mr. Cook would confine to Protestants the exercise of this prerogative that is not much relief, for the principle is the same as the Catholic, and the exercise of it by a Protestant censorship would be scarcely less unbearable than by a Catholic censorship.AMS November 1888, page 82.5

But it could not be confined even to a Protestant censorship; for Senator Blair’s proposed Constitutional Amendment, which Joseph Cook heartily indorses, distinctly specifies “the Christian religion.” Now the leading Protestants acknowledge the Catholic to be an important branch of the Christian religion. Therefore, amongst these “good men” suggested by Mr. Cook, and that “competent committee of clergymen and laymen” mentioned by Dr. Schaff, there would assuredly be numbered “good” Cardinal Gibbons, and a troop of “good” archbishops and bishops of the Catholic Church. And when it shall have been decided arid settled just what principles of religion shall be taught in the public schools, they will be such principles as will be satisfactory to the Catholic Church, which will only open the way for the Catholic Church to enter the public school and teach the Catholic religion at the public expense. And that is precisely what Joseph Cook’s “remedy” amounts to—it only fastens the disease more firmly upon the victim.AMS November 1888, page 82.6

As the principle laid down by him is essentially Catholic, it was hardly to be expected that he would leave the subject without supporting his Catholic principle by Catholic doctrine and argument, accordingly he says:—AMS November 1888, page 82.7

“With a rule excusing children from any religious exercise to which their parents object, the private right of conscience need not come into conflict with public rights. It is a legal principle that where the right of society and the right of the individual come into conflict, the former is deemed paramount. We need not insist on making religious exercises compulsory against the will of parents; but it is preposterous to suppose that because a Jew objects to our Sabbath laws therefore we must repeal the Sabbath laws for the whole Nation. Shall we allow the fly to rule the coach-wheel upon which he happens to sit?”AMS November 1888, page 82.8

Any public speaker who would count, even by comparison, the consciences and the rights of men, as worthy of no more consideration than a fly, ought not to be listened to. But such views of the consciences and the rights of the minority have ever been those of the National Reformers, and although Mr. Cook has been a vice-president of the National Reform Association only about two years, he appears already to be entirely worthy of the position. These views moreover are being popularized very fast by the influential politico-religious leaders, such as Joseph Cook and his W. C. T. U.-Prohibition-National-Reform confreres.AMS November 1888, page 82.9

A. T. J.

“The Banished Book” American Sentinel 3, 11, pp. 82-84.

ATJ

BY the exclusion of that little book from the public schools of Boston, there has been revived considerable notice of the subject of indulgences. We have owned, for a number of years, a copy of the little book that has caused all this stir—Swinton’s “Outlines of the World’s History.” The passage that has shut out the book, and a teacher with it, from the public schools of Boston, is as follows:—AMS November 1888, page 82.1

“When Leo X. came to the Papal chair, he found the treasury of the church exhausted by the ambitious projects of his predecessors. He therefore had recourse to every means which ingenuity could devise for recruiting his exhausted finances, and among these he adopted an extensive sale of indulgences, which in former ages had been a source of large profits to the church. The Dominican friars, having obtained a monopoly of the sale in Germany, employed as their agent Tetzel, one of their own order, who carried on the traffic in a manner that was very offensive, and especially so to the Augustinian friars.”AMS November 1888, page 82.2

To this paragraph in the book there is added the following note:—AMS November 1888, page 82.3

“These indulgences were, in the early ages of the church, remissions of the penances imposed upon persons whose sins had brought scandal on the community. But in process of time they were represented as actual pardons of guilt, and the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from all his sins.”AMS November 1888, page 82.4

Now we should like for anybody candidly to state where there is anything said in this that should subject the book to banishment from the public schools. It is simply a statement of facts, and a very mild statement at that. Whether the treasury of the church had been exhausted by the ambitious projects of Leo’s predecessors; or whether it was exhausted by his predecessors at all, is a question upon which it is not necessary to enter, because it is not germane to the subject. The main question is one of simple fact, Was the treasury exhausted? and did that lead to the traffic in indulgences, which stirred up Luther, and led to the Reformation?AMS November 1888, page 82.5

Leo’s immediate predecessor, Julius II., had spent the whole time of his pontificate—a little more than nine years—in almost constant wars, in some of which he led the troops himself and acted the part of general.AMS November 1888, page 82.6

It was he who began the building of the Church of St. Peter at Rome; and he issued a bull granting indulgences to those who would contribute to the project. Although to sustain his wars and alliances the expenses of Julius were enormous, yet he did leave considerable treasure. But even though the treasury was not exhausted by his predecessors, it was easy enough for Leo X. to exhaust it, for he was almost a matchless spendthrift. Says Von Ranke:—AMS November 1888, page 82.7

“‘That the Pope should ever keep a thousand ducats together was a thing as impossible,’ says Francesco Vettori of this pontiff, ‘as that a stone should of its own will take to flying through the air.’ He has been reproached with having spent the revenues of three Popes: that of his predecessor, from whom he inherited a considerable treasure, his own, and that of his successor, to whom he bequeathed a mass of debt.”—History of the Popes, book 4, sec. 2.AMS November 1888, page 82.8

Says Lawrence:—AMS November 1888, page 82.9

“He was the spendthrift son of an opulent parent; he became the wasteful master of the resources of the church.” “It was because Leo was a splendid spendthrift, that we have the Reformation through Luther. The Pope was soon again impoverished and in debt. He never thought of the cost of anything; he was lavish without reflection. His wars, intrigues, his artists and architects, his friends, but above all the miserable Lorenzo [his nephew], exhausted his fine revenues; and his treasury must again be supplied. When he was in want, Leo was never scrupulous as to the means by which he retrieved his affairs; he robbed, he defrauded, he begged, he drew contributions from all Europe for the Turkish war, which all Europe knew had been spent upon Lorenzo; he collected large sums for rebuilding St. Peter’s, which were all expended in the same way; in fine, Leo early exhausted all his spiritual arts as well as his treasury.”—Historical Studies, pp. 66, 77.AMS November 1888, page 82.10

The “Encyclopedia Britannica” says that Leo. “bequeathed his successors a religious schism and a bankrupt church;” that “his profusion had impoverished the church, and indirectly occasioned the destruction of her visible unity.”—Art. Leo X. It is a fact, therefore, that the Papal treasury was exhausted.AMS November 1888, page 82.11

Now to the second question of fact, Did this lead to the sale of indulgences? Before his coronation as Pope, Leo had entered into an engagement “to issue no brief for collecting money for the repair of St. Peter’s;” but neither that, nor anything else, was allowed to stand in the way when he wanted money. Says D’Aubigne:—AMS November 1888, page 82.12

“Leo was greatly in need of money.... His cousin, Cardinal Pucci, as skillful in the art of hoarding as Leo in that of lavishing, advised him to have recourse to indulgence. Accordingly, the Pope published a bull announcing a general indulgence, the proceeds of which were, he said, to be employed in the erection of the Church of St. Peter, that monument of sacerdotal magnificence. In a letter dated at Rome, under the seal of the fisherman, in November, 1517, Leo applies to his commissary of indulgences for one hundred and forty-seven ducats to pay for a manuscript of the thirty-third book of Livy. Can all the uses to which he put the money on the Germans, this was doubtless the best. Still, it was strange to deliver souls from purgatory, in order purchase a manuscript history of the wars of Roman people.”—History of the Reformation, book 3, chap. 3.AMS November 1888, page 82.13

Says Bower:—AMS November 1888, page 83.1

“Leo, wanting to continue the magnificent structure of St. Peter’s Church, begun by his predecessor Julius, but finding his coffers drained, chiefly by his own extravagance, in order to replenish them, granted, by a bull, a plenary indulgence, or remission of all sins, to such as should charitably contribute to that work.”—History of the Popes, under Leo X., A. D. 1517.AMS November 1888, page 83.2

Says Macaulay:—AMS November 1888, page 83.3

“It was to adorn Italy that the traffic in induIgences had been carried to that scandalous excess which had roused the indignation of Luther.”—Essays, Von Ranke.AMS November 1888, page 83.4

And a Roman Catholic “History of the Church of God,” written by B. J. Spalding, Roman Catholic priest, with a commendatory preface by Bishop Spalding, of Peoria, Ill., says:—AMS November 1888, page 83.5

“The incident which served as an opportunity for the breaking out of Luther’s revolt, was the promulgation by Leo X. (1517) of a plenary [bull] indulgence, the alms attached to the gaining of which were to defray the expenses of a crusade against the Turks and aid in completing magnificent basilica of St. Peter’s at Rome. The Dominican Tetzel was appointed to preach this indulgence in Germany.”—Page 506.AMS November 1888, page 83.6

It is a fact, therefore, that the papal treasury was exhausted, and that Leo resorted to the sale of indulgences to replenish it.AMS November 1888, page 83.7

Now to the third question of fact. The banished book says: “These indulgences are, in the early ages of the church, remissions of the penances imposed upon persons whose sins had brought scandal on the community.” Notice, this does not say that indulgences were remissions of sins, but that they were remissions of the penances, or penalties, imposed upon persons because of their sins. Nor does it say by whom the penances were imposed. Now read the following definition of indulgence by Archbishop Purcell:—AMS November 1888, page 83.8

“An indulgence is nothing more nor less than a remission of the temporal punishment which often remains attached to the sin, after the eternal guilt has been forgiven the sinner, on his sincere repentance.... The doctrine of indulgences is this: When a human being does everything in his power to atone for sin, God has left a power in the church, to remit a part or the entire of the temporal punishment due to it.”—Debate with Campbell, pp. 307, 308.AMS November 1888, page 83.9

What Archbishop Purcell means by “temporal punishment,” is precisely what Swinton’s note is by penances imposed; for, to sustain his doctrine, the archbishop quoted 2 Corinthians 2:6, 10, where Paul, speaking of that man who had been disfellowshiped and had repented of his sin, says: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted [penance imposed] of many.” “To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also, for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ.” Then the archbishop says:—AMS November 1888, page 83.10

“‘In the person of Christ,’ mark those words, that he, in the person of Christ, forgave—what? Not the eternal guilt of the incestuous man—God alone can forgive that—but the temporal punishment; to restore him to the privileges of the church and Christian society.”AMS November 1888, page 83.11

Therefore it is demonstrated that Swinton’s note in that book is precisely the same statement of the doctrine of indulgences as that given by an archbishop of the Catholic Church.AMS November 1888, page 83.12

The other statement in the note is, that, “in process of time they [indulgences] were represented as actual pardons of guilt, and the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from all his sins.” Notice, this does not say that they were actual pardons of guilt, but only that they were represented as such. He does not say that the representation was true. It is but the statement of the fact that they were represented to be so and so. The note does not say that the purchaser of indulgence was delivered from all his sins; nor does it say that the Catholic Church teaches or taught that it was so; it simply states the fact that the purchaser was said to be delivered from all his sins.AMS November 1888, page 83.13

Now is it a fact that they were represented as actual pardons of guilt? Says the “Encyclopedia Britannica:“—AMS November 1888, page 83.14

“The doctrine of indulgences is singularly open to misunderstanding; and in its practical applications it has too often been used to sanction the most flagrant immorality.”—Art. Indulgences.AMS November 1888, page 83.15

If, therefore, that doctrine has been so used, will the Catholic Church say that indulgences were never represented as actual pardons of guilt? or that the purchaser was never said to be delivered from all sin? Will that church say that no person who ever handled or dispensed indulgences ever gave a wrong impression as to the precise effect of them? This of itself would show that in the words used there is no reproach cast upon the Catholic Church. But read the following. A Jesuit historian, quoted by D’Aubigne, speaking of the associates of Tetzel, the chief indulgence peddler, says:—AMS November 1888, page 83.16

“Some of these preachers failed not, as usual, to outrage the subject which they treated, and so to exaggerate the value of indulgences as to make people suppose they were sure of their own salvation, and of the deliverance of souls from purgatory, as soon as the money was paid.”—History of Reformation, book 3, chap. 1.AMS November 1888, page 83.17

And the Catholic “History of the Church of God,” before quoted, says:—AMS November 1888, page 83.18

“There had been for some time abuses in the form of dispensing and preaching indulgences; pious bishops had pointed them out, and statesmen had protested against them. Tetzel did not altogether avoid the abuses, and later the Papal legate, Miltitz, sharply rebuked him for his indiscretions.”—Id., p. 506.AMS November 1888, page 83.19

Now read the following words of Tetzel himself:—AMS November 1888, page 83.20

“Think, then, that for each mortal sin you must, after confession and contribution, do penance for seven years, either in this life or in purgatory. Now, how many mortal sins are committed in one day—in one week? How many in a month—a year—a whole life? AhI these sins are almost innumerable, and innumerable sufferings must be endured for them in purgatory. And now, by means of these letters of indulgence, you can at once, for life—in all cases except four which are reserved to the Apostolic See—and afterwards at the hour of death, obtain a full remission of all your pains and all your sins.”AMS November 1888, page 83.21

These words make positive the fact stated in Swinton’s note that indulgences were represented to be actual pardons of guilt, and that the purchaser was said to be delivered from all sin. It is not sufficient for Catholics to say that such is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The banished book does not say that such is or ever was the teaching of the Catholic Church. It simply says that such things “were represented,” and “were said,” and here are the words of Catholics showing that that is the fact.AMS November 1888, page 83.22

So the case of the book and the Boston School Board stands just thus:—AMS November 1888, page 83.23

1. The book says that at the time of Leo X. the Papal treasury was exhausted: and that is a historical fact.AMS November 1888, page 83.24

2. The book says that to recruit his exhausted finances, he adopted an extensive sale of indulgences: and that is a historical fact.AMS November 1888, page 83.25

3. The book says that indulgences were remissions of the penances imposed upon persons because of their sins: and that is a doctrinal fact of the Catholic teaching according to the words of a Catholic archbishop.AMS November 1888, page 83.26

4. The book says that in process of time indulgences were represented as actual pardons of guilt: and that is a literal historical fact.AMS November 1888, page 83.27

5. The book says the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from all his sins: and that is the literal historical fact as to what was said.AMS November 1888, page 83.28

All of which conclusively demonstrates that the action of the Boston School Board in banishing that book from the public schools, rests not upon the slightest particle of justice or reason, but is wholly an exhibition of that arbitrary and unreasoning despotism which is characteristic of the Papacy everywhere that it secures enough power to make itself felt. It demonstrates the fact that it is not the statements in the book that the Catholics hate, so much as it is that they hate everything that is not subject to the despotic authority of Rome. For if historical facts in regard to which both Catholic and Protestant authorities agree, cannot be taught in the public schools without the interference of Rome, then what can be taught there without her dictation?AMS November 1888, page 83.29

That everyone may see for himself how the matter stood we append a copy of the indulgence that was actually sold by Tetzel. Here it is:—AMS November 1888, page 83.30

“May our Lord Jesus Christ have pity on thee, N——N——, and absolve thee by the merit of his most holy passion. And I, in virtue of the apostolic power intrusted to me, absolve thee from all ecclesiastical censures, judgments, and penalties, which thou mayest have deserved; moreover, from all the excesses, sins, and crimes, which thou mayest have committed, how great and enormous soever they may have been, and for whatever cause, even should they have been reserved to our most holy father the Pope, and to the apostolic See. I efface all the marks of disability, and all the notes of infamy which thou mayest have incurred on this occasion. I remit the pains which thou shouldst have to endure in purgatory. I render thee anew a partaker in the sacraments of the church. I again incorporate thee into the communion of saints, and re-establish thee in the innocence and purity in which thou wert at the hour of thy baptism; so that, at the moment of thy death, the gate of entrance to the place of pains and torments will be shut to thee; and, on the contrary, the gate which leads to the heavenly paradise, will be opened to thee. If thou art not to die soon, this grace will remain unimpaired till thy last hour arrive. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.AMS November 1888, page 83.31

“Friar John Tetzel, commissary, has signed it with his own hand.”—D’Aubigne, History of Reformation, book 3, chap. 1.AMS November 1888, page 84.1

A. T. J.

“The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union Defended” American Sentinel 3, 11, pp. 86, 87.

ATJ

MR. JOHNSON has sent us another communication in reply to our article in the September SENTINEL on the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union; and here it is:—AMS November 1888, page 86.1

EDITORS AMERICAN SENTINEL: The next charges you bring against the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union are, first, that it “proposes to establish a theocracy in this country,” and to this end demands the ballot for women. Second, that it is the closest ally and the most powerful support of the National Reform Association.AMS November 1888, page 86.2

What you say under the first charge I confess I am not sure that I understand. If I do, the burden of your objection lies against “putting the ballot into the hands of women.” But how this would “establish a theocracy” I cannot see. A theocracy is a Government immediately directed by God. A true theocracy in the United States now would be a pure republic in which the people—not the men only, but both men and women—would choose all the officers, and in which the will of God would be supreme, higher than the will of the people, and higher by the consent and will of the people. And I cannot see how any Christian man or woman can object to such a theocracy. I wish our Government was such now.AMS November 1888, page 86.3

As to woman suffrage I may say that I am not aware the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union has ever given any deliverance. No doubt many of the members favor it and have so said; and probably some local Unions may have so voted. I do not know. Good women as well as good men all over the country favor it; multitudes of both oppose it. Your charge against the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union is founded only on what somebody in 1886 wrote for some monthly reading. It seems to me, therefore, that it is “far-fetched.”AMS November 1888, page 86.4

But the big end of your assault upon the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union is its affiliation with the National Reform Association. And in your amplification of the charges against said Association, you make various propositions that I think are without foundation. I am not a member of the Association (I like my church better), but I indorse its principles and am familiar with its history and work, and I most unhesitatingly deny the statements you make. The Association does not “propose to turn this Government into a theocracy,” except in the sense defined above. The Association does not “declare that dissenters from National Reform opinions cannot dwell together on the same continent with National Reformed Christianity.” The Association never did declare that “there is nothing out of hell that should be tolerated as soon as these.”AMS November 1888, page 86.5

You do not like Senator Blair’s proposed constitutional amendment. Will you be so kind as to publish it in the SENTINEL, so that your readers may judge of it for themselves, for I think your greatest objection must be that it is worded on the presumption that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath.AMS November 1888, page 86.6

Finally, you charge the National Reform Association with being an ally of the Papacy. Among other things of the same kind and very doubtful you say that “the Association argues that the Catholic Bible and Catholic instruction shall be established in the public schools wherever Roman Catholics are in the majority.” This, like your other statements, must be positively denied. The Association never said anything of the kind. Secretary Stevenson, I think, at some public meeting at Saratoga a year ago, said something about permitting the Catholics to read the Douay Bible in their schools rather than have no Bible-reading at all; but I never heard that other National Reformers agreed with him. And sure I am that the Association never said a word in approval of what he had said at Saratoga. This, your charge against the Association, is therefore not only “far-fetched” but unfair.AMS November 1888, page 86.7

In reference to what you say about National Reformers pledging themselves to join hands with the Roman Catholics to secure and enforce the National Sunday Law, I am not so well informed and cannot deny so positively. Perhaps some of them have been guilty of it. But even if they have been it is unfair to charge it against the Association or against other members of it.AMS November 1888, page 86.8

N. R. JOHNSTON.

1. Mr. Johnston says we “charge” that the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union proposes to establish a theocracy in this country, and then defends the Union by declaring such a theocracy a good thing, and by saying he cannot see how any Christian man or woman can object to it. In other words, he defends the Union against the charge, by confessing that the charge is valid. A theocracy is a Government immediately directed by God; and it must be established immediately by God. But these people nowadays do not intend that this proposed theocracy shall be either established or directed immediately by God. They intend to establish it by popular vote, and to have it directed by human administration as now. Then, such a Government being, as they claim, a Government of God, whoever shall sit at the head of the Government will sit there in the place of God, and as the representative of God and the executor of his will. And that is all that the Papacy has ever claimed to be. Under the theory of the National Reform-Woman’s Christian Temperance Union the claims of the Pope are neither presumptuous nor extravagant. And if the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union theory shall ever be formed into Government here, there will be here but the Papacy over again.AMS November 1888, page 86.9

2. He says our charge “against the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union is founded only on what somebody in 1886 wrote for some monthly reading. It seems to me, therefore, that it is farfetched.” Yes, our charge is founded only on what “somebody” wrote, etc. Exactly who wrote it we do not know, but we do know that Miss Frances E. Willard edited it; and we count her somebody, at least so far as the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union is concerned. She edited it and published it in her official capacity as president of the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union; and it was sent abroad to the local Unions as an official document, and it was received and read in the local Unions as such. Mr. Johnston or anybody else can find the whole reading with these particulars in the Christian Statesman of September 30, 1886. This it is upon which our charge is founded, and it is not “far-fetched.”AMS November 1888, page 86.10

3. Next he defends the National Reform Association, by saying that it does not propose to turn this Government into a theocracy, “except in the sense indicated above.” That is to say that the National Reformers do not propose to turn this Government into a theocracy except by turning it into a theocracy.AMS November 1888, page 87.1

4. He says, “The Association does not declare that dissenters from National Reform opinions cannot dwell together on the same continent with National Reformed Christianity;” and that “it never did declare that there is nothing out of hell that should not be tolerated as soon as these.” The speech in which both these statements were made is printed in this number of the SENTINEL, which Mr. Johnston may read, and our readers may read it and judge between us and Mr. Johnston. That speech was made by Rev. Jonathan Edwards, D. D., a vice-president of the Association, in a National Reform National Convention held in New York City, February 26, 27, 1873. It was officially published by the Association, of whom we bought it; and it is at this day still advertised and sold by the Association as official and representative National Reform literature. If that does not make it the declaration of the National Reform Association, then how would it be possible for the Association to declare anything.AMS November 1888, page 87.2

5. We printed in full in the July SENTINEL (1888) both the Sunday Bill, and the proposed constitutional amendment introduced by Senator Blair. We oppose them both because they are both antichristian, subversive of liberty, savoring of tyranny, and directly in the line of the establishment of a religious despotism.AMS November 1888, page 87.3

6. Our charge that the Association agrees that the Catholic Bible and Catholic instruction shall be established in the public schools wherever the Roman Catholics are in the majority, Mr. Johnston says must be positively denied, and then admits that Secretary Stevenson did say something about it at Saratoga, but that the Association never said a word in approval of it. Mr. Stevenson did say it,—and he was officially representing, and acting for, the Association when he said it. And when Dr. Price made his motion, that motion commissioned “the National Reform Association” to secure such an agreement with the Catholic officials “if possible.” And Mr. Stevenson, as secretary of the Association, and for the Association, accepted the commission; and the whole thing was printed in the Christian Statesman. If that is not the word and act of the Association then what could be?AMS November 1888, page 87.4

7. About pledging the National Reform Association to join hands with the Catholic Church, he thinks that “perhaps” some of them have been guilty of it. Yes, they are guilty of it. There is no perhaps about it. The statement was made in an editorial in the Christian Statesman, December 11, 1884. The Christian Statesman is the official organ of the National Reform Association, and if its editorial utterances are not the utterances of the Association then whose utterances are they?AMS November 1888, page 87.5

The SENTINEL does not dwell on technicalities; it does not take unfair advantages; it does not make people or parties transgressors for a word. By the plainest, fairest, and most logical interpretation possible, the iniquity of this National Reform, Woman’s Christian Temperance Union political scheme is great enough. There is no need to dwell on technicalities. And as for our statements, they are always made on authority, and as nearly correct as we can possibly make them. The SENTINEL knows precisely what it is doing, and Mr. Johnston and others like him had better stop criticising, and go to believing, what the SENTINEL says.AMS November 1888, page 87.6

A. T. J.

October 1888

December 1888