THE St. Louis Globe-Democrat runs into the same way of error with several other papers on the subject of the Bennett law and the opposition to it. It makes the opponents of the law to be “the opponents of the English language,” while they are nothing of the kind. They teach English in their schools; their children learn to speak English; they themselves learn it and use it on occasion. It is a total perversion of the question at issue to make the action of the opponents of the Bennett law to be against the English language or its use. The sole point at issue is whether the State shall assume control of the private schools and dictate what shall be taught there, or how it shall be taught.AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.1

Again the Globe-Democrat misstates the question when it says:—AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.2

In the matter of the regulation of the schools the people will not submit to dictation from any church or churches, however widely extended or powerful.AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.3

In this contest there is no attempt whatever on the part of either of the churches concerned to dictate to the State in any way in the matter of the regulation of the State schools. It is strictly and really a denial of the right of the State to dictate in the matter of their own, private schools. As the State would be right in resenting dictation from any church in the matter of the regulation of the State schools, so any church is right in resenting the dictation of the State in the regulation of the church schools. Such action on the part of the churches is only allegiance to the principle of the absolute separation between Church and State. For, for any church to assume control of the State schools or dictate in any manner whatever what shall be taught there, or how, would be a union of Church and State; and it is none the less a union of Church and State when the State presumes to assume control of the church schools and dictate what shall be taught there, and how it shall be taught. Whoever pleads for the separation of indeed, will be an open straightforward opponent of the Bennett law, and everything like it.AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.4

A. T. J.

“Sunday-Law Arrogance” The American Sentinel 5, 41, pp. 322, 323.

ATJ

IN the Christian Union of July 26, Dr. Lyman Abbott, the editor, says on the question of Sunday:—AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.1

The current notion that Christ and his apostles authoritatively substituted the first day of the week for the seventh is absolutely without any authority in the New Testament.AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.2

This statement is undoubtedly true, as any one may satisfy himself by carefully reading the New Testament. It is also the view held by other leading Protestant doctors, notably Dr. Schaff, and by other leading publications, for instance, the Christian at Work.AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.3

In the same paper from which we make the above quotation, in “Home Talks about the Word,” Emily Huntington Miller on the subject of Christ, says:—AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.4

He taught by his example. He always kept holy the Sabbath day.AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.5

Now it is absolutely certain that Christ did not keep the first day of the week, but the seventh day according to the commandment, the day which all the Jews were observing. There was never any controversy about whether that day should be observed or not. The contention raised by the Pharisees against the Saviour was not whether that day should be kept, but how it should be kept. The day, therefore, which Christ kept holy was not the first day of the week; and, as he taught by his example, it is evident that there is no force whatever in his teaching by example in favor of the observance of the first day of the week.AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.6

This is the doctrine and this is the logic of these two quotations from the Christian Union. This is the truth as acknowledged by these two writers, and this journal. And being the truth, what basis is there in revelation, religion, or reason, for all these preachers and associations so urgently demanding the enactment of laws and the strict enforcement of the laws already in existence, to compel people to respect the first day of the week as the Lord’s day, the Sabbath day or the Christian Sabbath?AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.7

Such statements as these from those who believe in the observance of the first day of the week, plainly shows what THE SENTINEL, has always insisted upon, vix., that the movement to secure the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws, is nothing more nor less than a scheme of ambitious preachers to secure control of the civil power to force upon people their own will for the will of God. Such a thing would be bad enough if it were truly the will of God which they sought to enforce; but when it is their own will that they intend to put in the place of the will of God, and compel people to obey it as the will of God, then it is infinitely worse. The scheme is nothing less than an effort to put themselves in the place of God, and so to erect here a living likeness to a power which did that same thing before; that is, the Papacy.AMS October 16, 1890, page 322.8

A. T. J.

October 9, 1890

October 23, 1890