TO-DAY the AMERICAN SENTINEL enters upon the eighth year of its publication. Each year of the seven, now in the past, has been one of success and of the greatest encouragement; but the year that is just past has been more so than perhaps all the others put together. And the year to come we expect to be no less full of success and encouragement than the one just gone; indeed it promises to be even more eventful.AMS January 5, 1893, page 1.1

THE SENTINEL was established to expose the evil designs and mischievous workings of the National Reform movement, and to warn against the dangers to Government and people, to State and Church, which lay wrapped up therein. True, from the first the people would not believe what we said in this respect; but we never cared for that: what we are here for is to set forth what we know to be the truth on this subject. Whether men will believe it or not is their affair.AMS January 5, 1893, page 1.2

WE have declared from the beginning that the combined churches would take possession of the Government to use it for their own purposes; and that the chief purpose for which they would use the Government would be to compel the observance of Sunday, at the dictation of the arbitrary will of the Church, in making void the law of God and establishing the living image of the Papacy. Let us now survey the field of the SENTINEL’S notice and see where we stand to-day; bearing in mind at the same time the fact that the people who publish the SENTINEL have known, and have published, more than forty years that that which has come would come.AMS January 5, 1893, page 1.3

IT would seem that all people in the United States would be glad of the opportunity to rejoice evermore that by its supreme law this Nation is pledged to religious freedom. It would seem that everybody ought to be glad of the opportunity to herald to all the world the fame of a nation under whose protection all people might dwell wholly unmolested in the full enjoyment of religious rights, and the liberty to worship or not to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences.AMS January 5, 1893, page 1.4

SUCH, however, is not the case. As religious bigotry knows no such thing as enlightenment or progress; as ecclesiastical ambition never can be content without the power to persecute; so, from the beginning, complaint has been made against the character of the United States Constitution as it respects religion, and constant effort has been made to weaken its influence, undermine its authority, and subvert its precepts.AMS January 5, 1893, page 1.5

From the very beginning, this feature of the Constitution has been denounced as foolish, atheistical, the strictly national sin, the cause of epidemics, etc., particularly by ministers of such religion as had not sufficient power of truth to support itself, and doctors of a divinity so weak and sickly that it could not protect itself, much less protect and bless its worshippers, or anybody else.AMS January 5, 1893, page 1.6

OCTOBER 27, 1789, “The First Presbytery Eastward in Massachusetts and Hew Hampshire,” sent to President Washington an address in which they complained because there was no “explicit acknowledgment of the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, inserted somewhere in the Magna Charta of our country.” In 1803, Samuel B. Rylie, D. D., of the University of Pennsylvania, preached a sermon in which he inquired: “Did not the framers of this instrument ... in this resemble the fool mentioned in Psalm 14:1, 3, who said in his heart, ‘There is no God?’”AMS January 5, 1893, page 1.7

IN 1812, President Dwight, of Yale College, preached a sermon in the college chapel, in which he lamented the failure of the Constitution to recognize a god, and declared that “we commenced our national existence, under the present system, without God.” The next year he recurred to it the saying that “the grossest nations and individuals, in their public acts and in their declarations, manifestoes, proclamations, etc., always recognize the superintendency of a Supreme Being. Even Napoleon did it.” Of course Napoleon did it. It is such characters as he that are most likely to do it; and then, having covered himself with the hypocritical panoply, to ruin kingdoms, desolate nations, and violate every precept of morality and every principle of humanity. Yes, Napoleon did it; and so did Charlemange before him, and Clovis, and Justinian, and Theodosius, and Constantine, to say nothing of hundreds of the popes. But the fathers of this Republic were not such as any of these, the noblest pledge of which is the character of the Constitution as it respects religion; for all of which every Christian can most reverently thank the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.AMS January 5, 1893, page 1.8

IN 1819, on a thanksgiving day appointed by the governor of Pennsylvania, Dr. Duffield preached a sermon at Carlisle, in which he declared the Constitution “entirely atheistical.” Other such testimonies as the foregoing might be given to a wearisome extent, but with one more these must suffice. In 1859, Prof. J. H. McIlvane, D. D., of the College of New Jersey—Princeton College—published an article in the Princeton Review for October, in which he really lamented that “the practical effect” of the Constitution as it is, with respect to religion, “is the neutrality of the Government with respect to all religion;” and seemed to be much grieved “that no possible governmental influence can be constitutionally exerted for or against any form of religious belief.” So far, however, all these criticisms and denunciations had been merely individual. Though they were strongly seconded and promoted by the legislative, judicial and executive authorities in almost all the States, there was as yet no organized attack upon the Federal Constitution, or regular war upon its principles.AMS January 5, 1893, page 1.9

IN 1863, however, such an organization was effected and such a war was begun. In February of that year, “a convention for prayer and Christian conference” was held in Xenia, Ohio, to consider in particular the state of the country. The convention met February 3, and on the 4th, Mr. John Alexander, then of Xenia, now of Philadelphia, presented for the consideration of the convention, a paper in which he bewailed the “human frailty and ingratitude” of the makers of the Constitution, and deplored the national sin of which they and all their posterity were guilty, because they had well-nigh legislated God out of the Government; and closed by declaring that “the most important step to be taken,” was “to amend the Constitution so as to acknowledge God and the authority of his law,” and proposing the following “as an outline of what seemed to be needed”:—AMS January 5, 1893, page 1.10

WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Saviour and Lord of all,] in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity [sic.], provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.1

The convention approved the spirit and design of the paper, and ordered its publication. The following July 4, “a few delegates” met in Pittsburg, issued an address to the country, and formed a plan for the calling of a national convention, which met in Allegheny, January 27, 1864. It is reported as “an earnest, prayerful, and most encouraging meeting.” It adopted a series of resolutions, andAMS January 5, 1893, page 2.2

A MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS

which latter is worth quoting, as showing the rapid growth of their designs upon the national Constitution. It runs as follows:AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.3

To the Honorable, the Senate and House of Representatives, in Congress assembled:AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.4

We, citizens of the United States, respectfully ask your Honorable bodies to adopt measures for amending the Constitution of the United States, [humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler among the nations, and his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government], and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, [and secure the inalienable rights, and the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves, our posterity, and all the people,] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.5

“And further: that such changes with respect to the oath of office, slavery, and all other matters, should be introduced into the body of the Constitution, as may be necessary to give effect to these amendments in the preamble. And we, your humble petitioners, will ever pray,” etc.AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.6

Resolved, That a special committee be appointed to carry the memorial to Washington, lay it before the President, and endeavor to get a special message to Congress on the subject, and to lay said message before Congress.AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.7

At this same meeting alsoAMS January 5, 1893, page 2.8

A PERMANENT ORGANIZATION WAMS EFFECTED

first called “The National Association to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,” with John Alexander as president, and Zadok Street, a Quaker, as vice-president. The name of the association was afterwards shortened to what it has been ever since—“The National Reform Association.” And such is the origin, organization, and aim of this regular war upon the Constitution and principles of our Government. From the first, churches and colleges throughout the land have been open to the dissemination of the nefarious doctrines of the association which have thus rapidly permeated society. The association worked alone, though steadily gaining influence and power, until 1885, when it secured the alliance of the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. Through this alliance it readily secured the further alliance, in 1887, of the National Prohibition Party. In 1888, it secured the alliance of the American Sabbath Union; and through this, in 1889, it secured that which it had been earnestly seeking ever since 1881,—an alliance with the Catholic Church.AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.9

Possessing thus the weight and influence of almost all the religious and religio-political elements of the country, the association, in 1888,AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.10

BEGUN ITS DIRECT ATTACK UPON THE CONSTITUTION

Through Senator Henry W. Blair, a resolution was introduced in Congress to amend the Constitution with a recognition of Christianity as the national religion. With this also and as a consequence of it, there was also introduced by Senator Blair, his bill establishing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath and the Lord’s day. While Senator Blair remained in Congress, these propositions were diligently, and even dishonestly, urged upon the Government. Other bills to the same purpose as the Blair Sunday bill were also urged upon Congress in the same way. When Senator Blair was left out, his proposed amendment went with him; but the National Reform combination went on without it to secure their main object—Sunday observance by national law—though they knew it to be unconstitutional, as the Constitution stands.AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.11

Thus stood the association and its legislative efforts at the beginning of 1892. And before the year was two-thirds gone, they hadAMS January 5, 1893, page 2.12

SECURED ALL THEYE EVER AMSKED

only not altogether in just the way they asked it. They had asked that this be made “a Christian Nation.” February, 29, 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States officially and unanimously declared that “this is a Christian Nation,” and justified all the evil accompaniments of that mischievous phrase, even to the divinity of Christ, ^{1We would not be understood as denying the divinity of Christ nor the inspiration of the Scriptures. Both are Bible doctrines and worthy of all acceptation. But this Government has no more right to take cognizance of these questions than has the Porte to declare that “there is but one God and Mahomet is his prophet.” All such questions are beyond the proper sphere of civil government.} the inspiration of the Scriptures, Sunday laws and all. Of this a long-time representative National Reformer, in the Christian Statesman, November 19, 1892, breaks forth as follows:—AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.13

CHRISTIAN POLITICS

THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONTHE GREATEST OCCAMSION FOR THANKSGIVING

[Department edited by Rev. Wm. Weir, Washington, Pa., District Secretary of the National Reform Association.]

“This is a Christian Nation.” That means Christian Government, Christian laws, Christian institutions, Christian practices, Christian citizenship. And this is not an outburst of popular passion or prejudice. Christ did not lay his guiding hand there, but upon the calm, dispassionate, supreme, judicial tribunal of our Government. It is the weightiest, the noblest, the most tremendously far-reaching in its consequences of all the utterances of that sovereign tribunal. And that utterance is for Christianity, for Christ. “A Christian Nation!” Then this Nation is Christ’s nation, for nothing can be Christian that does not belong to him. Then his word is its sovereign law. Then the nation if Christ’s servant. Then it ought to, and must, confess, love, and obey Christ. All that the National Reform Association seeks, all that this department of Christian politics works for, is to be found in the development of that royal truth. “This is a Christian Nation.” It is the hand of the second of our three great departments of national government throwing open a door of our national house, one that leads straight to the throne of Christ.AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.14

Was there ever a Thanksgiving day before, that called us to bless our God for such marvelous advances of our Government and citizenship toward Christ?AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.15

“O sing unto the Lord a new song, for he hath done marvelous things; his right hand and his holy arm hath gotten him the victory. Sing unto the Lord with the harp, with the harp and the voice of a psalm.”AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.16

WILLIAM WIER.

The National Reformers had declared that this movement was an effort to change that feature of our fundamental law which declares that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and establish the divine will as the authority in government with themselves the interpreters of that will. This Sunday legislation by Congress the National Reform combination secured, under threats such as this:—AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.17

Resolved, that we do hereby pledge ourselves and each other, that we will from this time henceforth, refuse to vote for, or support for any office or position of trust, any member of Congress, either senator or representative, who shall vote for any further aid for the World’s Fair, except on conditions named in these resolutions.AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.18

CONGRESS YIELDED

To these threats Congress yielded, and submitted to the dictation and demand which was thus made; and openly confessed that it did so because of the alternative conveyed in the threats. Now it is an undeniable truth, and but the statement of a principle, that, “To permit a church,—any church—to dictate, before hand, what laws should or should not be passed, would be to deprive the people of all the authority they have retained in their own hands, and to make the church the governing power instead of the people.” This is precisely what the combined church power of the National Reformers, did under threats; and Congress yielded to the threats and surrendered to the dictation. It follows, therefore, inevitably, that the National Reformers have thus deprived the people of all the authority which the people had retained in their own hands, and have made themselves the governing power instead of the people. Their effort has succeeded. They have “changed that feature of our fundamental law, which declares that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.19

They have also established the divine will as the authority in government, with themselves as the interpreters of that will, and the governmental power as the executive of their interpretation. They had long demanded that “The Government” should “simply set up the moral law and recognize God’s authority behind it, and lay its hand on any religion that does not conform to it.” In the matter ofAMS January 5, 1893, page 2.20

CLOSING THE WORLD’S FAI

on Sunday, in Congressional Record, July 10, 1892, page 6614, the National Reformers and Congress made the following record:—AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.21

MR. QUAY.—On pages 122, line 13, after the word “act” I move to insert:AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.22

“And that provision has been made by the proper authority for the closing of the Exposition on the Sabbath day.”AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.23

The reasons for the amendment I will send to the desk to be read. The Secretary will have the kindness to read from the Book of Law I send to the desk, the part enclosed in brackets.AMS January 5, 1893, page 2.24

THE VICE PRESIDENT.—The part indicated will be read.AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.1

The Secretary read as follows:AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.2

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.3

The foregoing is all that was said or done in relation to the question that day. The next legislative day, however, the question was taken up and discussed. The debate was opened by Senator Manderson of Nebraska. And in the Record of July 12, pages 6695, 6695, 6701, we read as follows:—AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.4

The language of this amendment is that the Exposition shall be closed on the “Sabbath day.” I submit that if the senator from Pennsylvania desires that the Exposition shall be closed upon Sunday, this language will not necessarily meet that idea. The Sabbath is not Sunday....AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.5

The words “Sabbath day,” simply means that it is a rest day, and it may be Saturday or Sunday, and it would be subject to the discretion of those who will manage this Exposition, whether they should close the Exposition on the last day of the week, in conformity with that observance which is made by the Israelites and the Seventh-day Baptists, or should close it on the first day of the week, generally known as the Christian Sabbath. It certainly seems to me that this amendment should be adopted by the senator from Pennsylvania, and, if he proposes to close this Exposition, that it should be closed on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday....AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.6

Therefore I offer an amendment to the amendment, which I hope may be accepted by the senator from Pennsylvania, to strike out the words, “Exposition on the Sabbath day,” and insert “mechanical portion of the Exposition on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.” ...AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.7

MR. QUAY.—I will accept the modication [sic.] so far as it changes the phraseology of the amendment proposed by me in regard to designating the day of the week on which the Exposition shall be closed.AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.8

THE VICE-PRESIDENT.—The senator from Pennsylvania accepts the modification in part, but not in whole....AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.9

MR. HARRIS.—Let the amendment of the senator from Pennsylvania, as modified, be reported.AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.10

THE VICE-PRESIDENT.—It will be again reported.AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.11

THE CHIEF CLERK.—On page 122, line 13, after the word “act” it is proposed to amend the amendment of the committee by inserting:AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.12

“And that provision has been made by the proper authority for the closing of the Exposition on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.”AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.13

This amendment was afterward further amended by the insertion of the proviso that the managers of the Exposition should sign an agreement to close the Fair on Sunday before they could receive any of the appropriation; but this which we have given is the material point.AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.14

All of this the House confirmed in its vote accepting the Senate amendments. Besides this, the House had already, on its own part, by a vote of 131 to 36, decided that Sunday is the “Christian Sabbath;” and by a vote of 149 to 11 that the seventh day is not the Sabbath. And thus did the Congress of the United States, at the dictate of the churches, not only take sides in a religious controversy and discuss and decide a religious question, but put itself in the place and assumed to itself the prerogative of authoritative interpreter of the divine law. For, from the official record of the proceedings there appears these plain facts:AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.15

1. The divine law was officially and in its very words, adopted as containing the “reasons” and forming the basis of the legislation. In other words, the legislation proposed only to enforce the divine law as quoted from the Book.AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.16

2. Yet those to whom the legislation was directed and who were expected to execute its provisions were not allowed to read and construe the divine law for themselves; and this for the very reason that there was a possibility that they might take the divine word as it reads and as it was actually quoted in the official proceedings, and shut the Exposition on the day plainly specified in the divine word which was cited as the basis and authority for the action taken.AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.17

3. Therefore, to preclude any such possibility, Congress assumed the prerogative of official and authoritative interpreter of the divine law, and declared that “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the divine law—that “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” is the meaning of the word of the Lord which says: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.”AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.18

By this legislation, at the dictation of the churches, Congress has distinctly and definitely put itself and the Government of the United States into the place where it has established, and proposes to enforce, the observance of an institution as sacred, and as due to the Lord, which not only the Lord has neither established nor required, but which is directly contrary to the plain word of the Lord upon the subject of this very institution and its observance as due to the Lord. And in doing this Congress has also assumed to itself the prerogative of authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures for the people of the land, and for all who come into the land; and puts itself in the place of God by authoritatively deciding that an observance established and required by the State, and which it calls the Lord’s, is the Lord’s indeed, although the Lord plainly declares the contrary.AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.19

But Congress did all this only at the dictation, under threats, of the combined churches, as led and managed by the National Reformers. The interpretation which Congress put upon the law of God is simply the interpretation which these church managers had put upon it long before. Congress was made simply the mouth-piece of the church managers, in putting into national law the construction which they had long ago determined should thus be put upon the moral law—this, too, a construction which makes void that law, and establishes the perverse will of man as of divine authority instead of the will of God as spoken, and written, and interpreted by the Lord himself.AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.20

In view of these things, no man can deny that so far as the Government is concerned, the National Reformers have secured just what they demanded, and so far have accomplished precisely what they aimed at. All that remains is for them to lay the governmental “hand on any religion that does not conform” to this which they have set up. And in the doing of it, they have caused this Nation to assume the place and the prerogatives of the governments of the Middle Ages, in enforcing the dogmas and definitions of the theologians, and executing the arbitrary and despotic will of the Church. And in so doing, they have set up the living likeness of the Papacy, the living image of the beast. Revelation 13:11-15.AMS January 5, 1893, page 3.21

A. T. J.

“Back Page” The American Sentinel 8, 1, p. 8.

ATJ

A HEARING upon these resolutions has been arranged for January 10, 11, 12, and 13—four days—the time to be equally divided between friends of the Constitution as it is, and those who would subvert it in the interests of a religious dogma. Thus do these measures not only again open up the whole question of Sunday closing of the great Fair, but the joint resolution introduced by Mr. Durborow on the 20th ult., brings prominently before the American people the much larger and more important question of the right of Congress to legislate upon religious questions.AMS January 5, 1893, page 8.1

THIS resolution, which recites in its preamble, that provision of the Constitution which provides that “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” should have the hearty support of every patriotic citizen of this Republic. The leaders and managers of the Sunday law cause in general, and of this Sunday closing crusade in particular, have arrogated to themselves the titles, “The best people of the land,” and “The law abiding people of the country;” but the truth is as shown in the history of the so-called National Reform movement given in the first article in this number of the SENTINEL, that for years they have waged a persistent and relentless warfare against the Constitution—the fundamental law of the land. They should now be stripped of the garments of hypocrisy with which they have clothed themselves, and be made to stand forth in all their hideous deformity, as subverters of the Constitution, and the enemies of both civil and religious liberty.AMS January 5, 1893, page 8.2

THE supreme law of the Government of the United States,—the Constitution,—positively prohibits any legislation on the subject of religion. Yet, in spite of this, in utter disregard of the supreme law of the land, these men by threats of force—threats of the loss of votes, the only force at their command—obliged Congress to legislate upon a religious subject, to decide a religious question, and to take their side in a great religious controversy. And in this they have plainly overridden the Constitution, and violated the supreme law of the land. And they know it.AMS January 5, 1893, page 8.3

THE National Reform Association, the ringleader in this whole religious combination for political purposes, has been working for nearly thirty years for national Sunday legislation. But knowing that Sunday is religious, and religious only, its managers argued from the first that such legislation would be unconstitutional, as the Constitution stands; and, therefore, for nearly thirty years they have advocated and demanded an amendment to the Constitution which should declare this to be “a Christian Nation,” and so create a basis for national legislation recognizing Sunday as “the Christian Sabbath.” And they are demanding the same thing still.AMS January 5, 1893, page 8.4

THUS, by their own arguments for nearly thirty years, we know that the ringleaders in this Sunday closing crusade know that Sunday legislation by Congress is unconstitutional. Yet, in conflict with their own continued arguments, these men take the lead in petitioning and threatening Congress for Sunday legislation. One of their own number, who had argued for years the unconstitutionality of such legislation, spent the whole of the first session of the Fifty-second Congress at the Capitol as “a Christian lobbyist” to secure this very unconstitutional legislation. And now, having secured this legislation which they know to be unconstitutional, having thus knowingly violated the supreme law, having thus subverted the Constitution, these very men take the lead in getting up and managing mass-meetings to endorse their unconstitutional action, to prevent Congress from undoing its unconstitutional work, and vote themselves the law-abiding people of the Nation!AMS January 5, 1893, page 8.5

BUT instead of being the “law-abiding people of the land,” they are the arch law-breakers of the land. Their action is as much worse than that of the average law-breaker, as the supreme law of the land is greater and more important than the local statutes. The average law-breaker damages the individual; these supreme law-breakers damage the whole Nation. The average law-breaker invades the rights of the individual; these supreme law-breakers have invaded, and even swept away, the rights of all the people. The average law-breaker disregards social order only in the locality where he is; while those supreme law-breakers strike at the very existence of social order, by breaking down the chief governmental safeguard of a nation.AMS January 5, 1893, page 8.6

THESE facts should be fearlessly set before the committee having in charge the “resolution to repeal the religious legislation pertaining to the World’s Columbian Exposition,” and Congress should be asked to undo, as far as possible, the evil that has been done in yielding to the demands of these subverters of constitutional, republican government.AMS January 5, 1893, page 8.7

BUT it may be urged that these men represent a majority of the people of the Nation, and the majority should rule even if to do it they are compelled to subvert the Constitution, that constitutions represent simply the will of the majority, and that when they cease to express the popular will, they should be changed or overridden. The position is not, however, tenable. In the first place, the National Reformers do not represent a majority of the people; but even if they did, it would not justify them in subverting the Constitution. Constitutions are made, not to be overridden by the majority, but for the protection of the minority. The minority has rights which the majority is bound to respect; and constitutions are largely for the purpose of defining and protecting those rights.AMS January 5, 1893, page 8.8

APROPOS to this subject is the article on another page, on “Limitations to Majority Rule.” The saying that “the majority should rule” is true only of those matters which come properly within the sphere of civil government. But religious questions are outside that sphere, not by constitutional guarantee, merely, but by the law of our being which makes us individually responsible to the Creator. The Constitution of the United States did not create religious rights, but simply recognizes them. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” And of these rights, Hon. Richard M. Johnson, in his matchless report to the United States Senate on Sunday mails, January 19, 1829, said: “They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which government can not deprive any portion of citizens, however small. Despotic power may invade those rights, but justice still confirms them.” The men who override constitutions and trample upon natural rights are the worst of tyrants, no matter what their profession may be.AMS January 5, 1893, page 8.9

January 12, 1893