p. 22 | Untitled article by W. N. HYATT

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · January 19, 1893

“The Friends and Foes.”

By W. N. HYATT

THE noted lecturer, Joseph Cook, of Boston, delivered an address in the Grand Opera House at Superior, Wis., on Dec. 18, under the auspices of the American Protestant League, his subject being, “The friends and foes of the public schools.”

His speech was reported by the Evening Telegraph, of Superior, from which I quote some of the gentleman’s sayings, which must be of special interest just at this juncture when religion and politics are so badly mixed. Mr. Cook seems to be alarmed at the influence that Catholics are gaining in political affairs, and fears lest they may gain the balance of power in the Nation. On this point he said:—

There are now about 8,000,000 Catholics in the United States, and about 40,000,000 Protestants. In ten or twenty years we shall have 100,000,000, and the Catholics 20,000,000, sufficient you see to turn any closely contested election. The parochial school teaches obedience to the clerical party, and even now the clerical influence is felt in politics.

Certainly, “the clerical influence is felt in politics,” in a very marked manner when ministers lobby in the halls of Congress, and the churches send petitions and memorialize Congress asking for the political power to control and regulate religious matters. And when feeling and fearing this clerical influence—this church party—senators will stand on the floor of Congress and gravely say, speaking of the bill for closing the World’s Fair on Sunday: “I would write the provision for the closure in any form that the religious sentiment of the country demands.”

Truly the clerical influence is felt in politics! But is it only the influence of the clergy of the Catholic Church that is felt? Who are the clergymen that do the political wire-pulling? Are they not professed Protestants seeking to gain control of the Government in the interest of the churches?

But the Government is no safer under the influence of professed Protestant preachers and churches than under the influence of the Roman Church and clergy. Either means ruin.

Again, speaking of the Jesuits, their influence in this country, dictating where least expected, etc., Mr. Cook said: “I ask only that the North Americans do as the South Americans did—expel them. Jesuitism is a naked sword with its hilt in Rome and its points in every place.” True it is! and it pierces the vitals of every government it touches. But what better is that same principle of Jesuitism under the name of Protestantism, which seeks to do the same wicked work that Jesuitism has always done?

Mr. Cook further said: “We deny the union of State and Church, but we do not deny the co-operation of Christianity and the State.”

That is all that the bishops asked of the imperial power in the fourth century. Just you (Constantine) help us and we and our church will help you. The Papacy was the result. But a still more remarkable statement was made by this noted speaker:—

Americans who put down slavery are not going to submit to sectarianism. The church or the family are not sufficient to educate the whole people, for one fourth of the people never see the inside of a church. The family that does not send its children to church is not fit to educate its children. And how can the church which never sees them. Neither can do as much as the school. . . . We put the child into the stomach of the school and turn out Americans. . . . We want the common school to educate the head and heart. We want the three links of iron, silver, and gold—the common school, colleges and education—joined. And the three to bind the American people to God.

The education for which Mr. Cook pleads is that which will bind the people to God. Moral training—religion. But notice that he pleads that the public schools, which are supported by the State, shall do this educating in morals, because “the church and the family are not sufficient.” “Pity ’tis ’tis true.” But why does not the gentleman, seeing the insufficiency of the churches for this great work recommend that they petition the God of heaven, who is the source of all power and righteousness, to make them sufficient for that work. We would ask: Whose or what religion would Mr. Cook have taught by the Government? His, of course. He would not have the Government teach his children false doctrine, surely.

Who would decide this matter? the Church? Then the Church would be dominating the State. And for the Protestant churches to take control of the Government to teach religion, to bind the people to God—is just as wicked, and the results just as subversive of the true principle of our Government as it would be for the Catholic Church to do the same thing. The whole thing is antichristian and un-American.

But Mr. Cook makes a still more astonishing statement: “But the Constitution says that religion, morals, and education must be encouraged. Thus the Constitution says that this is a Christian country. It gives to Protestants one day out of seven for rest, thereby acknowledging Christianity.”

Does this renowned American know what the Constitution says? He surely does. Then why such reckless statements? Every one knows or ought to know that there are no such statements made nor ideas held in the Constitution, as “acknowledging Christianity” or that “this is a Christian country.” The founders of our Government, noble men they were, and wiser than most of the modern divines, knew enough to leave these things out of the fundamental law; for they are indeed out of the realm of civil government.

But the Constitution teaches just the opposite of Mr. Cook’s statements, viz., “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Amendments, art. 1. And in the treaty with Tripoli made in 1797 the statement is made, that the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. (Treaties are a part of the fundamental law. See Constitution, art. 6).

The true Protestant idea of the province of civil government, is best stated in the immortal words of the Protestant princes of Germany at the Diet of Spires from whence the name Protestant originated.

“In matters of conscience the majority has no power. . . . To protect liberty of conscience is the duty of the State, and this is the limit of its authority in matters of religion.”

Is Mr. Cook’s doctrine Protestant, or Papal? Which? W. N. HYATT.