3. It is utterly useless to talk about teaching the principles of the Christian’ religion as one would teach the principles of arithmetic and geography. Such a thing cannot be. Those sciences are fixed. There is no chance for a difference of opinion in regard to them. They are the same in every nation and among all classes of religionists and men of no religion at all. An infidel could not possibly teach any different principles of arithmetic than a Christian would. But it is not so with religion. Even though it had been decided by vote of a council, what the principles of the Christian religion are, that, as already shown, would not change anybody’s mind, and every teacher of the Bible would give his teaching the bias of his own conception of truth. It could not be otherwise.AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.1

4. To obviate this, it is evident that, the principles of the Christian religion having been settled by the council of the churches, the State would have to embody them in a text-book, which all would be required to use. Mr. Blair has already seen the necessity for this, and has planned for it, as appears from the following extract from a letter which he wrote to the secretary of the National Reform Association:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.2

“I believe that a text-book of instruction in the principles of virtue, morality, and of the Christian religion, can be prepared for use in the pubic schools by the joint effort of those who represent every branch of the Christian church, both Protestant and Catholic.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.3

First, of giving the Catholic Church the controlling voice in determing what religious instruction should be given in the public schools, so that very many, if not the majority, of the public schools would virtually be only Roman Catholic parochial schools. Second, it would necessarily result in withholding the Bible from the people. For even though the principles laid down in the text-books or catechisms were in harmony with the Bible, it would not do to let the teachers have free access to the Bible, or else they would be imbibing doctrines that would be heretical, according to the religion of the State, and would be teaching them to the children. Within four hundred years men have been burned at the stake for doing just such things as that, and punishment of some kind would certainly follow in this country.AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.4

So we see that from whatever side we approach this amendment, it provides only for a union of Church and State, and that union on the Catholic model. We have not indulged in any fanciful speculation. History repeats itself; because human nature is ever the same. The reason which led to the prohibiting of the Bible in the Middle Ages, will do the same thing now.AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.5

One other point in Senator Blair’s remarks should be noticed. That is, that it is of the greatest importance that a child should possess a knowledge of the principles of the Christian religion, even if he does not apply those principles in his personal conduct. We most heartily dissent. We don’t believe that the knowledge which Judas had of the principles of the Christian religion, and he must have had an intimate knowledge of them, made his traitorous act one whit better. The principles of the Christian religion are of no account whatever unless they are applied to the personal conduct. Indeed they are worse than useless if not applied to the personal conduct, since they make the individual satisfied with a mere form of religion. And so again we charge this amendment with providing for a State religion which will be utterly destitute of the power of vital godliness, and of planning the education of children in this form, so that they will become conceited formalists, sunk in carnal security.AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.6

If anybody says that there is no danger that the amendment will ever be adopted, we warn him against indulging in any such delusion. The National Reform Association is to a man in favor of it. The Christian Statesman, of said:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.7

“Senator Blair’s proposed amendment furnishes an admirable opportunity for making the ideas of the National Reform Association familiar to the mind of the people.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.8

In the Christian Statesman of September 6, 1888, Mr. John Alexander, the father and first president of the National Reform Association, congratulated the association on the introduction of the Blair amendment, and said: “The National Reform Association ought to spare no pains and omit no effort which may promise to secure its adoption.” And in the issue of December 27, 1888, the same paper spoke most enthusiastically of both of Mr. Blair’s religious bills, and said: “Both of these measures involve the principle of National Christianity,” thus showing that we are not taking a partisan view when we says that its adoption will make the union of Church and State.AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.9

The National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, at its annual convention in New York in October, 1888, formally indorsed the Educational Amendment bill. See the report of Resolution Committee, in Daily Union Signal, October 24, 1888.AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.10

Besides this, the American Sunday Union, which was organized to push the Sunday-Rest bill and similar measures, is in favor of it. In fact, where the Sunday-Rest bill would find one supporter, the Educational Amendment bill would probably find a dozen; because so many are carried away by the glittering promises in the last part of section two, that they cannot see the danger in the other part. While plucking the rose, they will be stung by the serpent, unless they are warned. Will not the reader of this join us in sounding the alarm?AMS March 20, 1889, page 67.1

E. J. W.

“The State to Enforce Church Discipline” American Sentinel 4, 9.

E. J. Waggoner

The National Presbyterian, January, 1889, in an editorial entitled, “The Church and the Sunday Newspaper,” said:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 68.1

“The responsibility of the church for the continued existence of the Sunday newspaper, is beginning to attract the attention of thoughtful men. It is a fact which it is idle to attempt to conceal, that it is sustained by the patronage of the members of the evangelical churches. It is the support given them by this class, and this alone, that makes it practicable to continue the publication of these papers. The responsibility, then, of this great and growing evil is with the church.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 68.2

Similar statements are very often made. That the churches are the greatest Sunday breakers is quite generally admitted. It is a fact that the first Sunday excursion train was run at the request of ministers and church people. In Our Day, January, 1889, there is an article by Prof. W. G. Ballantine, of Oberlin, Ohio, which is wholly devoted to a statement of how members of churches in the East disregard the Sunday when they are on pleasure excursions in the West. In that he makes it apparent that professed Sunday-keeping Christians are responsible for a large part of the business that is done on Sunday. He says:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 68.3

“There can never be a Sabbath in Colorado until Eastern Christians have more conscience. They give the lie, when they go there, to the teachings of the home missionaries whom they support there.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 68.4

These testimonies might be duplicated many times over, but they are sufficient for the purpose of our argument. Read them again carefully before you go further. Mark well the statement of the National Presbyterian, that the Sunday newspaper, which is regarded as a synonym for the rankest kind of Sunday desecration, “is sustained by the patronage of the members of the evangelical churches. It is the support given them by this class, and this alone, that makes it practicable to continue the publication of these papers.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 68.5

It is to stop just such things as this that Sunday laws are wanted. Everybody knows that whenever a speech is made urging the necessity for a Sunday law, the Sunday excursion and the Sunday newspaper are set forth as equal to the saloon in desecrating the day. Now take particular note of this point:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 68.6

1. Since, by the admission of the representatives of the churches, it is church members who are responsible for the greater part of the Sunday desecration, it is evident that if church members kept Sunday strictly, the amount of Sunday business and pleasure would be reduced to a minimum. 2. Since these church members do by the very act of becoming church members pledge them-selves to observe Sunday as a rest day, it is evident that in violating Sunday they are violating a rule of the church, and are proper subjects for church discipline. The National Presbyterian makes this very emphatic. 3. Therefore it is evident, further, that when these churches call for State and National laws to enforce Sunday observance, they are simply asking the civil power to enforce the rules of the church, and to execute church discipline.AMS March 20, 1889, page 68.7

Let the reader judge if this is not a legitimate conclusion. We know that it cannot be fairly disputed. And therefore the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws does mark the consummation of the union of Church and State. No different state of things from this ever existed in the middle ages. The church then declared who were heretical, and the civil power executed the penalty upon them. That is what the American Sunday Union is asking to-day, that the Government shall enforce one of the laws of the church. And so by the evidence which they themselves furnish, they are working to secure an exact re-production of the Papacy. No wonder they find Cardinal Gibbons willing to co-operate with them.AMS March 20, 1889, page 68.8

But they will say that many States have Sunday laws and have had them for a long time, and yet there have been no such terrible results as would naturally follow a union of Church and State. To this we reply: (1) That these laws have been largely inoperative. It is this very fact which makes the American Sunday Union call for a National Sunday law. They want a National law to give efficiency to the State laws. Therefore it is not to be expected that we should have seen the full effect of Sunday laws. (2) But even with the manifest disadvantage which the Union claims, of having no National law to give force to the State laws, we have seen such results from Sunday laws in some States, notably in Arkansas and Tennessee, that we have no desire to see the union of Church and State made any more complete. If State Sunday laws can get in such deadly work now, what would they not do with a National law back of them to make them “efficient”? We leave the reader to solve the problem. E. J. W.AMS March 20, 1889, page 68.9

March 13, 1889

March 27, 1889