Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · Mar 29, 1900
“Slaves of What?”
By Editor
In the “Shelden edition” of the Topeka Daily Capital considerable prominence was given to the subject of the desecration of Sunday. In one issue we note the statement made by a railway employee that many employees of railway corporations are slaves. “We are slaves of what?” he inquires, and adds, “Sabbath desecration. It has come to be, violate the fourth commandment or starve.”
Now we ask our friends who believe in Sunday observance as a religious duty, How much faith in God does such a statement reveal? A person must “violate the fourth commandment or starve.” Who is it that keeps people alive? The Christian will at once answer, It is God. Then God, who keeps everybody alive, including railway employees, will let one of the latter continue to live only on condition that he violates the fourth commandment! That is what this man says, and what Mr. Sheldon’s “Christian newspaper” prints as being the truth. Think of it: God will take care of you194and keep you alive while you disobey him; but if you undertake to do what he has commanded he will let you starve to death!
Has this really come to be the orthodox conception of God? It is not the true Christian conception, certainly.
Contrast with this the following statement made by a person who would not violate his conscience touching the fourth commandment for the sake of keeping his position. We take it from the Union Signal, in connection with a report of religious services held in Willard Hall, Chicago:—
“Some time ago a brother came to the leader and stated his purpose to give up a good position because he was required to work occasionally on the Sabbath. The other day he came back with his face beaming. ‘Well,’ said he, ‘God has heard the prayers offered for me in Willard Hall. I have a good position with a Christian publishing house and am getting on splendidly.’ It pays to serve Jesus.”
Why should not every Christian, every individual who feels it a duty to obey the fourth commandment, do as this person did in the matter? And why should Christians expect that any other than favorable results would follow such action, as in this case? And if people who feel bound by the fourth commandment would do this, how long would they remain in “slavery?”
What then is the real trouble in the cases of those who, like this railway employee, feel that they ought not to violate the fourth commandment and yet do so for fear they will starve? He lays the blame upon the church, for its members’ patronage of Sunday trains. “The church of to-day,” he says, “is partly responsible for myself and a million of my brothers laboring on Sunday at the risk of our souls’ salvation.” Certainly he and they are in bondage—it may even be said, in slavery—but to what? “Slaves of what?”—to repeat his own query—slaves of the railway company? Oh no; the company does not compel them to labor against their will. They are as free to keep the Sabbath, or the day they regard as such, as was the individual mentioned at Willard Hall. The trouble is in themselves. They are slaves to something in their own hearts. And before they complain of others as being responsible for their condition, they should eject the tyrant from his throne within them, as is in their power, and theirs alone, to do. If they will do this, it will solve the Sunday-rest and Sunday slavery question, so far at least as they are concerned.
Force and Religion
Force combined with religion always results in a retrograde movement.
Religion and Politics
To UNITE religion with politics is not to elevate politics, but to degrade religion.
The State as Missionary
As the state must always carry the sword of justice, it is plainly disqualified for service in the capacity of a missionary.
The Christian Reformer
THE truly Christian reformer will approach the people with the Word of God, and not presume to approach God with the word of the people.
Reform Begins with the People
Good laws are the result, not the cause, of right sentiment in the minds of the people. A true reform must begin with the people, not with the laws.
Christianity Cannot Be Legislated
As human law can represent no love but only justice, and Christianity cannot be separated from love, it follows that Christianity cannot be expressed in the form of law.
The Sabbath and Sunday Laws
THE Creator gave the Sabbath to all men “without money and without price;” but the Sunday laws have fixed a price upon it, and those who will not pay must be fined or sent to jail.
Religious Truth and Religious Legislation
RELIGIOUS truth has in all ages found its way opposed by the barrier of religious legislation; and religious legislation has always represented an effort to dam up the tide of progress in religious knowledge.
The State Cannot Be Religious
THE state cannot be religious. The express purpose of religion—the gospel—is to provide a way of escape for the transgressor; while the express purpose of the state in its laws against crime, its police, and its courts, is to close up every avenue of escape against the transgressor.
Religious Legislation Unites Church and World
From its very nature, religious legislation must constitute a bond of union between the church and the world.
Enforcing Trade.
IN these days when the national flag has come to be considered by men of wealth and power as a “commercial asset,” to be waved over foreign territory merely for the benefit of trade, if no more urgent reason for it exists, the sentiment expressed in the following is a wholesome one to keep in mind:—
“To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, how valuable soever, is an object for which men may justly spill each other's blood; that the true and sure means of extending and securing commerce is the goodness and cheapness of commodities, and that the profit of no trade can ever be equal to the expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets or armies. And I am persuaded that cool, dispassionate posterity will condemn to infamy those who advise it, and that even success will not save from some degree of dishonor those who voluntarily engage in it.”
This is not an extract from a political document of recent origin, but is what the American colonists said through Benjamin Franklin in reply to the peace mission of Lord Howe to the leaders in the American Revolution.
Plain, yet Perplexing.
REFERRING to the religious problem in the Philippines, The Churchman, of this city, says:—
“It has been necessary to deny the political demands of the Filipinos, but it will be a strange thing if the United States, with religious liberty at home, should herself turn loose among these sheep the wolves whom her approach had scared away, and should protect the destroyers against the guardians of the sheep-fold. They have already gathered, partly by force, partly by fraud, partly from superstitious fears, enormous wealth,105and still greater claims on which the courts will have to pass in due season.” Just titles to property we must uphold, but it is a manifest iniquity to foist on our fellow-Christians priests whom they hate; and it is also impolitic. It will be a menace to peace and order, to life and property. The matter is a perplexing one, and new to our governmental diplomacy. It must be handled wisely; but it must be handled fearlessly, and it must be handled soon.”
But if it is “a manifest iniquity” and “a menace to peace and order, to life and property,” to continue the religious orders in power there, why should the matter be a perplexing one? Certainly the perplexity cannot be in knowing what are the demands of right and justice. The perplexity must arise in trying to deal with the matter in a politic way, aside from the plain requirements of equity. Such problems are always very perplexing, and frequently lead only to greater perplexity and difficulty as the attempt is made to settle them by the politic method.
Justice Upheld in Mississippi.
By R. S. Owen
THE CASES OF R. S. OWEN AND ROBERT NASH, ARRESTED FOR BREAKING SUNDAY, PROMPTLY DISMISSED.
Editor American Sentinel: The cases of Josiah Nash and R. S. Owen, for Sunday work, were brought into the Circuit Court at Aberdeen, Miss., March 13. We stated to the court that we had been tried and acquitted before Justice Lantrip, and we requested that the case be thrown out of court. The witnesses were questioned on that point, and testified that this was the same case which had been tried before. On affirming this they were dismissed at once and both cases were discharged.
Trying a case the second time for the same offense after the accused party has been acquitted, is strictly forbidden by the law of Mississippi. A zeal for the law of the land that would thus violate the law of the land, is so evidently inconsistent that its injustice seems to be recognized by all parties; and the effort that has been made in that direction seems now to meet with general disapproval. R. S. OWEN.
Amory, Miss., March 16.
The God of Battles.
By C. P. B.
ONE of Lord Roberts’ recent dispatches runs as follows:—
“By the help of God and the bravery of her majesty’s soldiers, the troops under my command have taken possession of Bloemfontein.”
Upon this the Chicago Journal remarks:—
“It is curious with what persistency the old idea, that God is on the side of battling armies, sticks in the mind. It is a thing people seem loath to give up, no matter what their cause.
“It is just as strong in the last year of the nineteenth century as it ever was. Oom Paul believes it. He has repeatedly assured his people that if they would be faithful God would give them the victory, and they have accepted the doctrine. . . . It is the habit of people to think that God interferes in their wars. The American people generally believed it in their conflict with Spain, and probably would if they went to war again. The mere fact that God can’t be on both sides, though both implore his aid, makes no particle of difference. Probably not until a nation goes to war believing it is in the wrong will there be a change in this particular.
“But the theological theory of war is having a rather disastrous effect on the Boers, it is said. With more simplicity and less ingenious sophistry than their foes they are beginning to believe in the converse proposition to President Kruger’s, if we may credit the dispatches. If God gave them victories because he was pleased with them, why does he now give them defeats? ‘Obviously,’ says the simple, psalm-singing, praying farmer, ‘because he is displeased with us.’ And if we may believe observers in the field, it has only taken a few defeats to take the heart of the South Africans and shake the faith of many of them in the righteousness of their cause.
“It is part of a large problem, and one that from the beginning has puzzled more learned men than the Boers. The only way out of it seems to be to conclude that God has some designs he won’t permit mortals to spy upon, and understand completely, through ordeal of battle or in any other way.”
It seems never to occur to a great many people that it is possible that God does not take either side in some wars.
Nobody ever suggests that God favors the highwayman who is successful in robbing his victim and making good his escape, and that he is displeased with the poor victim who is assaulted and plundered.
Nor do men think that the winner in a prize fight or in a street brawl succeeds because of the divine favor. It is only when nations fight, when the robbery is conducted on a gigantic scale, that God is supposed to be a party to it.
In every quarrel, whether personal or national, there is wrong on one side, and not infrequently on both sides. Nor is there anything in the Word of God to justify even the individual or the nation that is in the right in wreaking vengeance upon the party in the wrong. To do this the aggrieved party, or at least the aggressive party, must be at once accuser, judge, and executioner. But according to the Bible God is judge and executioner, neither does he permit any man to sit in judgment upon a case to which he (the man) is a party.
Doubtless God does often interpose and by his providence restrain or punish the transgressor and deliver the oppressed; but in very many cases both in individual and in national wars, victory is not with the right, but with the physically stronger party. It is time we were done with making God responsible for the wholesale murder of wars made possible only because of human greed of gold.
C. P. B.
Compulsory Militarism.
A GRAND ISLAND, Nebr., journal gives this statement of a case which came up in the public school in that city in February last, involving the question of the right of a public school board to make military drill compulsory upon the pupils. We give the substance of the report made by this journal.
The pupils of the public schools of Grand Island are exercised after school hours in military drill. One of the pupils, E. C. Hayman by name, refused to participate in the exercise, having been instructed by his father not to do so. For his refusal he was expelled from the school. His father sent him back the next morning. The professor told him that he was expelled unless he would agree to take part in the cadet drill, and when the boy refused to leave, the professor called in an assistant and went to police headquarters and swore out a warrant for the boy’s arrest. The boy was taken into196custody by the chief of police, and the case came up for decision in the court, where it was argued before a jury.
For some strange reason not stated, the judge ruled that the cause of the boy’s arrest should not be stated at the trial; whereupon one of the jurors arose and said:—
“Your honor, I am father of several children; I pay my taxes willingly, and I, as a member of this jury, rise to ask for information. Here is a boy who is ejected from our public schools and traduced into police court on a warrant which reads as though he was one of the lowest criminals, and yet the testimony of the State shows him to be a perfect gentleman in every respect; obedient and of spotless character. Yet the jury is prohibited from knowing a single point which led to the boy’s arrest. I say it is an outrage; that this jury has a right to know what this boy is arrested for. If the boy has always been an exemplary scholar in the schools, why should he be ejected and arrested? I say, your honor, that this jury has a right to know what caused this boy to be arrested.”
Nevertheless the judge still refused to allow this most essential piece of information to come before the jury.
The boy himself, when called to the witness stand, “stated that he had never been expelled from school before, neither had he any trouble with any teacher and his deportment cards were good; that on the evening of the 8th of February he was expelled from school, but here the court interrupted him from telling what he was expelled for, stating that if he referred to ‘that matter’ during the progress of the trial, he would be thrown into jail.”
At the conclusion of the boy’s testimony “attorney Glanville, for the State of Nebraska, addressed the jury to the effect that the orders of the school board should be obeyed, be they right or wrong; and that the justness of the case in question was no concern of ours.”
Then attorney Mitchell spoke for the defense. “He stated that he anticipated that the school board had made some ridiculous and foolish ruling which would not stand in court, and which was an attempt to take away parental rights of the parents over their own children; that he as a father and every other man of a family had rights over their children which no board or dictatorship dare molest and advised those who wanted forced militarism to go to Russia where they belong. For his part he was in this country for its freedom, and that if the school board had a right to compel school children to take militarism against the parents’ wish there was no longer freedom; that the board had just as much right to compel the scholar to join the football club, the skating club, or any other club, as they had the ‘cadets;’ that many parents did not believe in monarchy, militarism, or dictatorship, but on the contrary preferred to train their children for something good, something more elevating and more honorable than guns and swords; that guns and swords mean blood; that blood means murder, and that most parents have a higher ideal of their son’s future than such tyranny.” The jury retired, and to their credit, after being out three minutes, brought in a verdict of “not guilty.”
Unless the paper from which we gather these statements has greatly exaggerated the facts, it is difficult to see how the spirit of arrogant despotism could be carried much further than was done in this case. This is militarism unmasked. This is the spirit of it, which it will surely exhibit when it feels itself strong enough to do so safely. This is what will be in the public schools everywhere when militarism gets into the seat of power.
In this case in Nebraska this spirit met with a rebuke; and the school board voted to rescind the order making military drill compulsory, and to reinstate young Hayman in the school from which he had been expelled. But it was moved “that the military law be hereafter managed by the teachers in a similar manner to all other studies, i. e., allow scholars to attend school without the military drill, but grade them accordingly; or, in other words, when they had reached the period where they are entitled to a diploma in all other studies, the same could be refused on the ground that they did not take the soldier part.” And “This passed without modification.”
The journal from which we have quoted, cites for the benefit of the school board a ruling of the Nebraska Supreme Court relative to the rights of parents in selecting studies for their children, that “The parent has a right to make a reasonable selection from the prescribed studies for his children to pursue, and this selection must be respected by the trustees, as the right of the parent in that regard is superior to that of the trustees and the teachers.” The journal pertinently adds:—
“The action of the trustees of our city schools in expelling young Hayman for refusing to appear in dress parade and military drill after school hours, can plainly be seen to be in open violation of law and the legal rights of the parent in the premises.
“The latter action of the board, namely, to withhold diplomas until the student or students have taken the prescribed cadet course, is equally illegal, so far as the laws governing our public schools are concerned. The school board, however, may be excused for the action taken on the ground that it was non-conversant as to the Supreme Court ruling in the premises, and the only honorable course now to pursue on the part of that body is to rescind its later action and hereafter conduct itself within the spirit and letter of the law.”
India’s Unprecedented Famine
THE unprecedented extent of the famine in India was officially confirmed the other day by the Earl of Onslow in the British House of Lords, who said “it was without parallel in the history of the country.” During the week ending March 3 there were 4,375,000 people receiving government aid to keep them from starvation.197There have been many famines in India in the past; but why should the severest of all come when England had ruled the country for over a century? Is there something fundamentally wrong with the imperialistic idea?—Springfield Republican.
Lessons in Religious Liberty from the Experience of King Nebuchadnezzar.
By W. W. Prescott
BY PROF. W. W. PRESCOTT.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR was king over all the earth, and it was a new thing for anyone to dispute his absolute authority. It was to him a case of unbearable insolence when the three Jewish captives from conquered Jerusalem presumed to withstand him to his face.
“Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego: therefore he spake and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated. And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. Therefore because the king’s commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.”
The king of Babylon did his utmost. The furnace was “exceeding hot,” and from its fiery mouth it breathed forth death to “the most mighty men” that were in the army of the king of Babylon. They were literally slain by the breath of its mouth. Not one of that assembled multitude could say that the flame and the heat were not real, for it was demonstrated that men selected for their power of resistance could not endure to approach near it. To them it was “a consuming fire.” And there was no possibility left to the three captives for escaping from the furnace, for they “were bound,” and they “fell down bound” into the very center of the flames. Thus did the king of Babylon purpose to inflict summary punishment upon those who presumed to question his right to dictate what and how they should worship; and by making a public example of these few he would effectually check any such tendency to these treasonable sentiments on the part of his other subjects. But he did not know with whom he was dealing, for he had not yet become acquainted with the God whose dwelling is with flesh, and there was no Gamaliel to say to him, “Refrain from these men, and let them alone. . . . lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” That God who had brought these men to Babylon to reveal his power to save, and whose presence was known to them, would through them make his presence known to all the people.
“Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counselors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, came forth of the midst of the fire. And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king’s counselors, being gathered together, saw these men upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was a hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.”
THE GREATEST KING OF EARTH ONLY A SUBJECT.
It was through the direct providence of the God of heaven that Nebuchadnezzar held a universal dominion. Through the prophet Jeremiah the Lord had said: “I have made the earth, . . . and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant. . . . And all nations shall serve him.” And in his interpretation of the dream Daniel had said: “The God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.” It is evident, therefore, that the Lord expected all the people of the earth to be obedient to Nebuchadnezzar. Why then did he work in such a wonderful manner to deliver from death those who had refused to obey the king’s decree?
The key to the answer is found in the words of the Lord, “the king of Babylon, my servant.” These three Hebrews were servants of the most high God, and they were loyal, faithful servants. The king of Babylon was also a servant, but he was disloyal; and his unfaithfulness could not absolve the faithful few from their allegiance to the God of heaven and earth.
When God gave the dominion of all the earth into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, he did not resign any of his own authority over the universe. “The Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King; at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.” “The Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods. In his hand are the deep places of the earth; the strength of the hills is his also. The sea is his, and he made it and his hands formed the dry land.” “He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols; but the Lord made the heavens. Honor and majesty are before him; strength and beauty are in his sanctuary. Give unto the Lord, O ye kindreds of the198people, give unto the Lord glory and strength.” “O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness; fear before him all the earth. Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth.” “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands. Serve the Lord with gladness; come before his presence with singing. Know ye that the Lord he is God; it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people and the sheep of his pasture.”
In the beginning God gave man authority over all the earth, and over every living creature; but this authority was only under God as supreme. As soon as man ceased to be loyal to God, he lost the dominion. Now to Nebuchadnezzar had God given the dominion (compare Ps. 8:4-8 and Jer. 27:6; Dan. 2:37, 38); but Nebuchadnezzar had no power except as he received it from God. “There is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.” Nebuchadnezzar’s great dominion was but a proof of the fact, which he ignored, that he was but an instrument in the Lord’s hands, with no power of his own. See Isa. 10:5-18. Nebuchadnezzar’s obligation to “fear God and keep his commandments” was not lessened, but rather increased, by his being placed in high position. As an individual he owed to God the same allegiance that the most despised Hebrew captive did, and as a king over all the nations of earth there was upon him the far greater responsibility of setting to all men an example of loyalty to the Creator and supporter of all. The disregard of the three Hebrews to the edict of the king was in reality an exhibition of the highest kind of loyalty, namely, to God, the King of kings.
Moreover, the three Hebrews were more faithful to the interests of Babylon than was the king himself. When they were taken captive, God said to them, “Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof ye shall have peace.” But peace comes only to those who keep the commandments of God. “Great peace have they which love thy law; and nothing shall cause them to stumble.” “There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” “Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people.” Babylon’s safety depended solely on its loyalty to God and his commandments. Its fall was foretold, only because of its sins. Therefore in refusing to worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up, the Hebrew captives were showing greater solicitude for the safety of Babylon than its king was.
This is a lesson for to-day for all the dwellers, the rulers, and the captives of Babylon,—the whole earth. In the obligation to be subject to the powers that be, no man is absolved from the obligation to be subject to God, from whom all rulers hold their power. The injunction to every soul to be subject to “the higher powers,” includes subjection to the Most High power. All men alike, both high and low, owe to him common allegiance; and if the king whom God has placed or allowed to be placed in the position of “a little brief authority” forgets his dependence upon God, and presumes to exalt himself above him, by setting at nought any of his laws, then the subject must remember that his duty cannot possibly rise any higher than obedience to God, and he must show the way of life to the disloyal ruler who is jeopardizing the peace of his own dominions.
GOD NEEDS NOT HUMAN SUPPORT.
But although Nebuchadnezzar recognized that “there is no other God that can deliver after this sort,” he really held himself as still above even that God, by threatening to destroy any who should speak against him. Any god who needs the assistance of an earthly king in order to maintain his standing among men, is certainly not so great as the king, and the king who offers such assistance shows that that is his view of the matter. Nebuchadnezzar was just as much out of his place in seeking to enforce the worship of the true God, as in commanding the worship of his image. God himself does not compel men to worship him. He invites and seeks to win by a wondrous revelation of his own character, and he commissions every man who hears the invitation to invite others, but he does not need and will not accept the assistance of any earthly power to enforce obedience to him. Every such effort hinders rather than advances the kingdom of God in the earth. The state may make man a hypocrite, but only the creative power of God can make a man “a new creature.”
The last which we hear of these three men is that they were “promoted,” “in the province of Babylon.” When they stood before the angry king and witnessed for the true God, they had no assurance that they would not seal their testimony with their lives, but the flame of the furnace was to them simply the light of the glory of God in which their true character was revealed to the king of Babylon, who gave them the place to which their worth entitled them. “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
War in the Philippines.
A NEW ENGLAND journal, touching the question of the casualty list on the Filipino side since war began with the United States, says:—
“No official estimate of the number of Filipinos killed and wounded by the Americans since February 4, 1899, is likely to be made public yet awhile, because the figures would shock the country. As a starter, however, it is known that in the first battle around Manila, according to General Otis’s official report, the natives lost at least 3,000 men. Since then there has been over a year of warfare, and, according to the Boston Transcript, 500 natives were killed or wounded by one regiment in the single month of January, 1900. It is conservative to say that 20,000 Filipinos have been killed199and wounded, while 25,000 would not be an extreme estimate.”
This is a larger number than have been killed and wounded on both sides thus far in the South African war, with its months of hard and almost steady fighting and several “pitched battles.” Evidently the fighting in the Philippines has been real war.
Religion in the Public Schools.
Speaking of the recent effort of the rector of a Roman Catholic church in this city to bring the city government and the churches into partnership for the control of public school teaching, The Outlook gives the following summary of arguments for and against religious instruction in the public schools:—
“In our judgment, the issue between the ecclesiastical and the non-ecclesiastical system of education is not one which can be compromised. One or the other must be adopted and consistently maintained. By the ecclesiastical system we mean one in which the education is conducted by and under the control of a church; by the non-ecclesiastical, we mean one which is conducted by and under the control of the state. One system makes popular education an ecclesiastical function, the other makes it a political function. No middle ground is possible; nor is any such partnership as that suggested by Dr. McSweeney, by which the state furnishes the money, establishes the standard, and prescribes the curriculum, while the church selects the teachers and administers the school, either practical or desirable.
“We believe that we understood the arguments in favor of treating popular education as an ecclesiastical function. We here summarize the arguments in a few sentences. They are, in brief, that it is the function of government to govern, and educating is not governing; that democracy especially should remit to private enterprise all matters that can be so remitted, and education is such a matter; that America has definitely decided that religion is not a matter for the state, that education is inseparably connected with religion, and that the same arguments which forbid a state system of religion forbid a state system of education; that if education is left to the state it cannot be kept from politics, and politics corrupts wherever it enters; that true education includes the development of the moral and spiritual as well as of the intellectual nature, and that to omit the former from the schools is to make them godless, irreligious, and so eventually immoral, while to attempt to introduce religion into schools supported and carried on by the state is impossible in a country with such radical differences of opinion in religious matters as exist in America. These arguments must be conceded to be not without weight; they deserve serious consideration; it is not strange that a considerable, though we believe lessening party in the United States are influenced by them to favor a parochial system, either in lieu of or in combination with a state system; and he who would give this question a fair and rational consideration must recognize both the honesty and the intelligence of those who take the ecclesiastical side of the question. Nor shall we attempt here to answer these arguments seriatim. We shall instead simply state, with almost equal brevity, the cogent reasons which we believe have wrought in the American people an unalterable determination to maintain the state or non-ecclesiastical system without compromise and without partnership.
“I. If nothing succeeds like success, nothing fails like failure; and the ecclesiastical system has been a lamentable failure. The Roman church has had for centuries the control of education in Spain, Italy, and France, and the result is not only a lamentable amount of illiteracy, but also, what is worse, a lamentable lack of independence and intelligence in the common people. The Protestant church has had control of popular education in England for centuries, and it can hardly be doubted that greater progress in popular education has been made in the half-century of the board schools, established and maintained by the state, than in all the previous centuries of the ecclesiastical dominion and the parochial schools. On the other hand, the state both supports and administers the systems of education in Germany and in America, and these are the two countries in which popular education has been developed with the greatest success; these are the countries in which there is the widest diffusion of intelligence as well as of learning among the people. An ounce of practise is worth a pound of theory, and no wise community will abandon because of theoretical arguments a plan which is working well for one which has never worked at all.
“II. The reason for this difference it is not difficult to discover. The ecclesiastical system rests on authority as its foundation, and seeks obedience as its end; the non-ecclesiastical system rests on reason as its foundation and seeks independence as its end. That there are some teachers in public schools who do not understand the free spirit of public education, and some teachers in parochial schools who are neither subservient to ecclesiastical authority themselves nor endeavor to make their pupils so, is doubtless true; but both are exceptions. The tendency of the parochial school is to discourage questioning, of the public school to encourage it. The one teaches its children to accept without doubt what they are told; the other teaches them to inquire for themselves what is truth, and to seek for it in all quarters. The common ecclesiastical criticism on our public schools illustrates and emphasizes this distinction: that criticism is that the public school tends to infidelity. It doubtless does tend to skepticism in all realms; and skepticism is the first condition of intellectual activity. If we want a people who will follow its leaders, we want the ecclesiastical system; if we want a people who will think for themselves, we want the non-ecclesiastical system.
“And these two systems, thus radically differing in their foundation and the end they seek, cannot be united in any kind of a partnership. It is not enough for the state to pay the money, fix the standards, determine the curriculum; it must select the teachers, and inspire the entire system: else that system will become in its spirit ecclesiastical, not independent; will cultivate in its pupils allegiance to authority, not the habit of thinking for themselves. That there are dangers in both directions may be conceded. Independent thinking is often crude, egotistical, erroneous thinking. But this is better than not thinking at all, as any form of life has200in it more hope for the future than any description of death.
“III. The first objection seems to the American a conclusive reason for not transferring the education of our youth from the state to the church; the second objection seems to him also a conclusive reason against attempting to commit the education to a partnership between state and church; the third objection is equally conclusive against any scheme which assorts the children of the community in different schools according to the religious prepossessions of their parents. Any such assortment runs denominational divisions down to the cradle, and so intensifies the religious prejudices which are too often fostered, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously, in the home and in the church. In Canada, where the children of Roman Catholic parents are taught in Roman Catholic schools and the children of Protestant parents are taught in Protestant schools, the division between Protestants and Roman Catholics is as deep and the controversy as bitter as it was half a century ago. In the United States, where Roman Catholic children and Protestant children grow up together in the same school, joining in the same sports as well as in the same studies, religious prejudice is steadily disappearing; . . . there is neither a Roman Catholic vote nor an Orange vote, and it is not likely that there ever will be. The religious problem is one of the most serious which confronts our Canadian brethren. We have no such problem on this side of the line, nor shall we be likely to have such a problem so long as we maintain for the education of all our children an unsectarian public-school system wholly free from every form of ecclesiastical influence.”