A CORRESPONDENT of the *Independent* quotes Rev. H. T. Miller, pastor of the Fif
Page 1
The American Sentinel
January 15, 1891
Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · January 15, 1891
A CORRESPONDENT of the Independent quotes Rev. H. T. Miller, pastor of the Fifth Presbyterian Church, of Chicago, as follows upon the question of the Bible in the public schools: “The Bible is the most inflammable wood in the public schools. A Bibleless school is not necessary a godless school. The Church will attend to the religious work. The school is not the best place in which to teach the Bible. I say this though there is not a chapter or verse that is not written in gold in my heart and mind. The American people want fair play. Therefore take the Bible out and give the tax-payers their rights.”
Is There Nothing Selfish in This?
By Alonzo T. Jones
The third article published by Mr. Crafts in his series in the Christian Statesman is under the inquiry, “Are Sabbath laws consistent with liberty?” and he claims that they are not only consistent with it but essential to it; to civil liberty, religious liberty, and personal liberty. He says that centuries ago the Dark Ages were suddenly lighted up with the watchword “Religious Liberty,” and that this meant to those that raised it, liberty to die that others might have liberty to pray, and that “there is nothing selfish in that.” Then he says that this sent along another watchword, “Civil Liberty,” and that this meant “liberty to die in resisting tyrants, that succeeding generations might have the liberty of self-government,” and “there’s nothing selfish in that.” And now, Mr. Crafts in his Sunday-law campaign, professes to be sounding forth the true notes of the other watchword “Personal Liberty.”
But where has there been in all his Sunday-law career any manifestation of the liberty to die that others might have any benefit from anything that he does or proposes? Why, he does not even exercise the liberty to talk an hour, not even on Sunday, without a previous guarantee of ten dollars in cash, and it must be spot cash, too! And “there is nothing selfish in that,” oh, no! That is a personal liberty. But if a poor man should work all day on Sunday for $1.50 or $2.00 to obtain the necessary means to support his needy family, that is such a heinous crime that he must be visited by a penalty of a hundred dollars’ fine, the half of it with his earnings to go to the spying loafer who will prosecute him. And “there is nothing selfish in that.” No, no; all that is personal liberty!
Next, he criticises the New York World for saying that “the State has nothing to do with the sanctity of Sunday except to protect every citizen equally in his rights to use the holiday as seems best to him,” and says that such a principle “brings pleasure to the theatre-goers and toil to the actors who have repeatedly pleaded for their rest-day.” Yes, and the “Pearl of Days” says that the saloon-keepers also have pleaded for their rest-day. Now, it is one of the fundamental principles in the argument of the Sunday-law advocates that the object of the Sabbath is to give physical rest in order that the individual might be better prepared for work on the other six days of the week. This argues that all occupations are equally meritorious, and that it is proper that the actors, the saloon-keepers, the gamblers and all such should be granted a day of rest to recuperate their wasted energies in order that they may be better fitted for their several occupations through the other days or nights of the week.
Next he says:—
Plucky Mayor Rankin of Elizabeth, New Jersey, enunciated a great principle in connection with his recent enforcement of the Sabbath law, when he said that the persons who keep their places closed on Sabbath are done an injustice by those who are permitted to remain open. The personal liberty of one man often means the Sunday slavery of a dozen competitors who would prefer to close.
That is to say: That a man who wants to close his place of business and keep Sunday, cannot do it because he is afraid he will lose a chance on a few cents. And therefore this chance must be secured to him by compelling everybody else to do as he wants to do. And “there is nothing selfish in that,” of course.
Again, this argues that the man who wants to keep Sunday and be religious, is willing to enjoy his religion if he can be assured by the Nation that it shall not cost him anything. And “there is nothing selfish in that.” No, no.
Yes, it is true, Mayor Rankin did enunciate a great principle—the great principle of selfishness—which is the basis of all Sunday laws.
Again says Mr. Crafts:—
An advocate of the Sunday opening of the World’s Fair says that “the Mohammedan ought to be at liberty to make himself at home on Sundays in this non-religious Fair,”
And to this he replies:—
But why not let the thousands of Christians who work six days in the week about the Fair have “liberty” to be at home on that home day?
Why, they can have that liberty easy enough. What is to hinder the managers of the Fair from employing people on Sunday who have not worked the other six days of the week about the Fair? That would be easy enough. We know a street-car company which does that very thing. It would be perfectly easy for the managers of the Fair to let all the people who work six days in the week about the Fair have liberty to stay at home on Sunday. But that would never satisfy Mr. Crafts and his fellow-workers. That is not the kind of personal liberty they want to see established. The only kind of personal liberty that they know anything about is that in which everybody is compelled to do as they want to do. And “there is nothing selfish in that.” No, indeed.
Next he says:—
The Republic cannot endure without morals, nor morals without religion, nor religion without the Sabbath, nor the Sabbath without law.
Well then, if religion cannot endure without the Sabbath, nor the Sabbath without law, then what is it but religion, that they want the Sunday laws for? This is another of his statements that annihilates his theory of the civil Sabbath. And this statement he supports with the following “simon pure” National Reform doctrine:—
The right of the Sabbath to be protected by law is strengthened when we remember that this is unquestionably a Christian Nation. Certainly a nation as well as a person, has religious liberty, liberty to have a religion. . . . But Christian morality is recognized as common law, and the Sabbath is protected as the reservoir of that morality. To repudiate the union of Church and State does not necessitate a “secular” union of the State to the devil. . . . In the words of Dr. Lyman Abbott: “We run up the Puritan flag, and emblazon on it the motto of a modern and modified Puritanism; a State Christian, but not ecclesiastical; with faith, but no creed; reverence, but no ritual; a recognized religion, but no established church.”
This is a batch of statements that is just about as full of nonsense and self-contradiction as anything can possibly be.
1. This is not a Christian Nation. There is not a State, nor a city, nor a town, nor a village in the Union that is Christian. And this the National Reformers and all other people know.
2. A nation, in the sense here used, has not liberty to have religion. Such a thing is impossible. The only way that a nation, in the sense here used, can have a religion, is to have some sect get control of the civil power, and force upon everybody else the religion of that sect.
3. A flag of Puritanism as a religion, ought never to be seen again; not even with the motto of modern and modified Puritanism. The modern and modified form of it is just as wicked as the original and unmodified form. In the original they hung placards on the breasts of people who did not choose to conform to the religious views of the majority; and in the modern, as represented in Mr. Crafts’s own words, they propose to do the same thing. In his book on the Civil Sabbath he has a placard printed in big black letters, which reads: “To be hung on the breast of every one who buys postage stamps, cigars, provisions, or what-not on the Sabbath.” And it is for sale by the hundred, for the “modern and modified” Puritans to hang on the breasts of their neighbors.
4. A State cannot be Christian. Whenever it has been attempted to make it so, it never could be done without making it ecclesiastical, and it will be so till the end of time. It has been tried often enough to demonstrate this to the observant mind. That is the very proposition that was made to Constantine when he suffered the bishops to palm off on him the theory of a Christian State. It should be Christian but not ecclesiastical; but it became ecclesiastical, and when they made the proposition they intended it should be so. It is singular how men who can read can hide their eyes to this the most important lesson that history can possibly teach.
5. With faith but no creed. Now the word “creed” comes from credo, which means “I believe,” and faith is belief. Belief is faith. This statement of Dr. Abbott’s simply says that he will have belief with no faith. Perhaps he will.
6. The idea of a recognized religion without an established church is the same as a “State Christian but not ecclesiastical.” It means in fact a recognized religion with an established church. Because just as certainly as any religion is recognized by the State and made the favorite of the State, just so certainly will the hypocrite and the political demagogue join themselves to the church in which that religion is recognized, to such an extent as to give it control of the civil power and that power will be used in the interests of that church, and will inevitably create an established church.
Again Mr. Crafts says:—
If a law is for the “general welfare” it ought to be no objection even to a secularist that it is also favorable to religion.
But no law that is favorable to religion can ever be for the general welfare. Every such law that ever was made has been against the general welfare, a curse to society and to the State.
Once more, in speaking of the several reasons which justify Sunday laws he declares that “the religious obligation is the basis of them all in the public conscience.” Isn’t it singular that these men will persistently hold forth their pretensions to a civil Sabbath when they can hardly write a complete sentence in reference to it without showing it to be religious and nothing else? And it is yet more singular that there are so many people who think so little as not to be able to detect the hypocrisy betrayed in such blundering pretensions.
A. T. J.
WHEN there are persons to be found, who form an exception to the apparent unanimity of the world on any subject, it is always probable that dissentients have something worth hearing to say for themselves, and that truth will lose something by their silence.—John Stuart Mill.
THE struggle for religious liberty was already begun when the Apostles Peter and John stood before the Jewish council of elders and rulers, and declared, “whether it be right, in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye; for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”—Early Struggles for Religious Liberty.
If the Protestants are not careful they will find the public schools Romanized to the entire satisfaction of the Vatican. Be satisfied with the family, church and Sunday school. If these will not preserve your religion, you are in a bad way. This agitation for the Bible in schools and religious teaching, are aids to the Roman conspiracy to capture and destroy the schools that teach American youth to think.—Loyal American.
Shall the State Teach Morals?
By C. P. B.
The pastor of a church in Bloomington, Illinois, sends us the following letter:—
To the Editor:
Some one has had the goodness to send me three copies of THE SENTINEL. I assure you of my deep interest in the great questions of Sabbath observance, and religion in the common schools; and my convictions are clear and strong that THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is on firm ground touching these questions.
In a sermon preached to my congregation on last Sabbath night on our free schools, I asked the question, which has met with much favorable comment, whether or not the denominational bickerings over religion in the schools could not be hushed if the State Boards of Education were to authorize the publication and use of a text-book for our schools which shall embody the moral sentiments common to all men, and require pupils to pass their examination thereon, not theoretically only, but in character?
The book could take a positive character and embody something as follows, confirmed and illustrated by hundreds of the noblest spirits of our American commonwealth, namely: Thou shalt tell the truth always. Thou shalt deal justly and honestly with thy fellow-men, always. Thou shalt abhor meanness, trickery, and moral and physical pollution. Thou shalt be manly, womanly, generous, upright, forgiving, sweet-tempered, modest in demeanor (decorum), and scores of other kindred sentiments which ennoble society, and act as conservators of that spirit in society and the State which insures safety to our institutions.
The clamor of denominationalism in the name and guise of religion for place and power might be hushed by such a book. Certain it is that, with the Roman Catholics on one side demanding their religion, and the Methodist Church on the other hand demanding theirs, we are likely to come into a boiling and bubbling of our school interests which will leave us without any free schools.
Could you think that the preparation and use of such a book, as named, would be practicable?
Very truly yours,
H. O. HOFFMAN.
We appreciate the good opinion of THE SENTINEL expressed by our correspondent, but fear that he does not fully understand our position. The plan that he proposes, is, in our opinion, impracticable, and we might add that we think, fortunately so. The moral precepts enumerated by Mr. Hoffman are all good. All this, and much more, should be taught to every child; but this should not be done by the State. Moral precepts cannot be taught dogmatically, and would be of little value if so taught.
Morals must have a sanction, that is, moral precepts must be based upon some acknowledged authority. Teach either children or adults that they must always19tell the truth, and must always deal honestly with their fellow-men, and the question immediately arises in their minds, Why must we do this? To answer this question as it should be answered, is to appeal to the law of God, and consequently teach religion. But this is not contemplated in Mr. Hoffman's scheme; neither would it be proper for the State to do this.
It has been repeatedly shown in these columns, and it is admitted by very many, that the State cannot teach religion. It has never been commissioned to teach religion, and it is impossible for it to do so. But on the other hand, to teach children that they must be truthful, and that they must be honest, involves the giving of some reason for these precepts; but as the true reason cannot be given, there remains but one thing to do, that is to quote the familiar maxim that “honesty is the best policy.” But this is to abandon principle and to appeal to selfishness. Everybody would probably admit that as a general rule “honesty is the best policy;” but unless the individual is taught that there is some principle involved, that he is accountable to some superior being, to some authority out of and above himself, higher than his fellow-men, he will be constantly finding what he will deem exceptions to this general rule, and will depart from it whenever in his judgement one of these exceptions will apply, and consequently, for the time being, dishonesty become the best policy.
To undertake to teach morals, while eliminating from them all divine authority, is to teach that policy is the criterion, the standard of rightfulness; not only that it is a standard, but that it is emphatically the standard; and it matters not by how many examples of good men these precepts may be supported, every man is likely to feel that he is as good as his fellows, as well able to judge of rightfulness, as well able to shape a standard of rightdoing; and this standard is sure to be warped and biased by his own selfish interests.
Every man can find a thousand excuses for departing from the straight path of rectitude, of right dealing, in order to advance his own interests. And this is just what men do when they forget God and turn away from him. We have abundant evidence of this in the testimony of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. There he tells how men forget God, and exalt themselves in his stead. And that must always be the effect of teaching the utilitarianism suggested by our correspondent. All these things of which Mr. Hoffman speaks should be taught; but they should be taught in the home, in the church, and in the denominational school, and not in the public school. For when they are taught they should be supported by the moral law; and an appeal to that law cannot properly be made in the public school.
Again, Mr. Hoffman says, that the children should be taught to abhor meanness, and moral and physical pollution. It is easy enough to teach children to abhor physical pollution for sanitary reasons, but without religion how can they know what moral pollution is? How shall they understand moral obligation unless it be defined by religion? Our Saviour taught something of the nature of moral pollution in the Sermon on the Mount, but that is entirely outside of, and beyond, anything which the State can properly teach. It involves an examination of the motives of the heart, and that is beyond the jurisdiction of the State. The Saviour showed that hatred is a violation of the sixth commandment, and that lust is a violation of the seventh; but how shall the teacher in the public school illustrate and emphasize the precept which enjoins the abhorrence of moral pollution? to what shall he appeal to impress upon the mind of the child the fact that he must not entertain evil thoughts? There is absolutely nothing to which he can appeal, without teaching religion. And as before remarked, to attempt anything of the kind must result in one of two things: either the teacher in the public school will teach religion and will appeal to the Scripture to sustain this teaching, or he will establish a human standard, which in the mind of the child, will be the highest authority, and will consequently not only fail in elevating the child and purifying his soul and heart, but will place him in a position that it will be impossible for the teachings of the gospel to reach and elevate him at any subsequent time, because he will be unable to comprehend that there is anything higher or more desirable than his own conceptions of right.
We wish that in some way every child could be taught the true principles of right and wrong, that every child could be taught his accountability to God, not only for his actions, but for his words and thoughts. But it is clear that the State cannot undertake to give this instruction; because it cannot give it without teaching religion, and it cannot teach religion without having a religion, and it can have religion only in the sense of having a creed which it fosters. It matters not how limited that creed might be; it might contain a dozen articles of faith, or it might contain only one; it would be none the less a creed; and in time a church would certainly crystallize around that creed. Such was the origin of the Papal church. State churches have universally grown out of a desire upon the part of religionists to exalt what they deemed to be the truth. Constantine in the fourth century did not make any denomination the State church; he simply made Christianity the State religion and everything else followed as a logical consequence.
The only consistent and safe position for either Christians or non-Christians to assume is that the State shall confine its instruction to the exact sciences, leaving the Church, through its ministers, and through parents, and through church schools, to give religious instruction. The greatest service that the State can render the Church is to let it entirely alone.
Never have churches grown and prospered as they have in this country, and never have they been so entirely separated from the State as here. True, this separation has not been as complete as it should have been, but it has been sufficient to convince the world of the beneficial effects of the divorce of Church and State. It has demonstrated the fact, that a church left to itself, to rely entirely upon its own resources, to provide its own funds, to support its own ministry, has a much greater influence for good, and accomplishes more for the elevation of the race, than it is possible for it to do when connected with civil government.
We trust that every reader of THE SENTINEL, will use his influence, not only to have the separation of Church and State continue in this country, but to make it as complete and perfect as it ought to be everywhere. But to do this we must avoid the adoption of any scheme for the teaching of morals in the public schools. The most we can do is to insist upon correct deportment, and trust to the agencies, so abundant on every hand for giving the necessary moral training to the rising generation. C. P. B.
The American Political System Purely Secular.
By W. A. Blakely
DR. PHILIP SCHAFF, in “Church and State in the United States,” under the head, “The Connecting Links Between Church and State,” says: “A total separation of Church and State is an impossibility, unless we cease to be a Christian people.” But this is a mere dictum of a theologian whose ideas may have been largely modified by the study of American principles, but who cannot fully give up the old idea. Dr Schaff evidently belongs to the class to whom Madison referred in his letter to Edward Livingston, when he said: “Notwithstanding the general progress made during the last two centuries in favor of this branch [the religious branch] of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias toward the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and religion, neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against.” What Dr. Schaff terms a necessity, Madison, the principal framer of the Constitution which is the embodiment of our political system, says is a danger which “cannot be too carefully guarded against.” This shows how diametrically opposite to American20institutions are these religio-political writers of to-day. Every argument or sophistry that they can think of is used to show that Christianity is an integral part of our laws, its recognition as such by the Government a duty, and its hallowed institutions entitled to special protection as such. But these ideas are the gratuitous inventions of the friends of Church and State. It was far from the thoughts of those who established our Government to give countenance to any such political ideas. Jefferson denies that Christianity was ever rightfully a part of the common law, even of England, much less of this country where we profess to have absolute religious liberty.
The three “connecting links between Church and State,” which Dr. Schaff mentions, are marriage, Sunday laws, and religion in public schools. But the truth is that the first of these is not a religious relation at all (any more than is plowing corn, or selling a bushel of oats, but it is simply a status entered into by a purely civil contract) and the other two are entirely outside the sphere of our political system, as can be positively proved by quotations from the writings of Madison himself, which are emphasized by the declarations of Jefferson.
On account of the “strong bias toward the old error” that there must be “some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and religion,” Madison says: “Every new and successful example, therefore, of the perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.” It is absolutely impossible to have a “perfect separation” and yet have connecting links. Consequently, Dr. Schaff’s “connecting links” necessarily fall under the condemnation of Madison’s outspoken letter.
The truth is, however, that Madison took the pains to express himself on the “connecting link” of religion being taught in the public schools. In reference to religious professorships, he wrote to Edward Everett as follows:—
A university with sectarian professorships becomes, of course a sectarian monopoly; with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of theological gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur, for a time at least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others. On this view of the subject there seems to be no alternative but between a public university without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a university.
This imputation “of irreligious tendencies” if religion is not taught, Dr. Schaff furnishes, for he says “a total separation of Church and State is an impossibility, unless we cease to be a Christian people,” and then mentions religion in the public schools as one of the “links” which cannot be dispensed with. But Madison thought quite differently on the subject. He not only opposed having religion taught in the public schools because it was outside the sphere of the State, but he always claimed, and with good reason, that it was injurious to religion as well.
“The difficulty,” said he, “of reconciling the Christian mind to the absence of religious tuition from a university established by law, and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law.” And in another letter the year previous, he said: “We are teaching the world the great truth . . . that religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with, the aid of government.”
These same principles forbid Sunday legislation; and, accordingly, Madison did not hesitate to express his opinion as to the “perfect equality” of Sabbatarians with Sunday keepers. In a letter to Dr. De La Motta, a Jewish Rabbi, he says: “Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect.” Then if the Sabbatarians, who form only “seven-tenths of one per cent,” have “perfect equality” with the dominant cult, a law compelling all to rest on Sunday is equally unjust with a law compelling all to rest on Saturday.
So, too, if the Jews are on a “perfect equality” with Christians, and Madison states emphatically that they do come “fully within the scope of these observations,” then the Jews have exactly the same right to have their belief that Christ is an imposter taught in the public schools, as have the Christians that he is divine! They have the same right to have the principles of antichrist taught in the schools, that the Christian has to have the “unsectarian principles of Christianity” taught there. Thus we see how the schools would become the arenas of theological gladiators. It is impossible to preserve equality and at the same time have any religious service whatever in the public schools. From this it is evident that Dr. Schaff’s “connecting links” are diametrically opposed to the American political system, as expounded by the principal author of the great work which is the embodiment of that system. Jefferson boldly asserted the following sweeping doctrine, when speaking of religious proclamations: “I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrine, discipline, or exercises.”
Nor did these statesmen extend this equality only to the various religions. It was universal equality with them. No doctrine was to be taught in the schools, nor were any religious laws of any kind to be enacted that were not equally acceptable to both unbeliever and Christian. There is not a single act of Christian worship, study, or reverence of any kind that the State has a right to force upon a single citizen. It is the inalienable right and “it is the duty of every man,” says Madison, “to render to the Creator such homage, AND SUCH ONLY, as he believes to be acceptable to him.” Then the unbeliever in the Christian religion can, by right, no more be compelled to regard any of the institutions of the Christian religion, than could the Christian be compelled to regard the rites and institutions of Judaism or heathenism. All have equally the right to use their time as they will, but in that use, they must not, on any day, nor in any way, interfere with the equal rights of others. Madison says again: “All men are to be considered as entering into society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and, therefore, retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.” Hence, if all are on a “perfect equality,” and the American system is a “perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters,” the inevitable conclusion must be that the religio-political writers in asserting that “a total separation of Church and State is an impossibility,” are mistaken; and that the American political system, when strictly carried out, is a total separation between Church and State. And we not only do not cease to be a Christian people, but “every new and successful example” of that perfect separation succeeds “in showing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together”—the apprehensions of Church and State advocates to the contrary, notwithstanding.
W. A. BLAKELY.
University of Michigan.
Must End in Failure.
ARCHBISHOP IRELAND, of St Paul, in his address before the National Educational Association, favored the theory of compulsory education, and also insisted that the public money should be used for the support of the parish schools of religious denominations. His solution of the school problem is to “permeate the regular State school with the religion of a majority of the children of the land,” and also to “pay for the secular instruction given in denominational schools according to results” attained. This we regard as a very defective and wholly impracticable theory. The truth is, that there is no religion of the majority, in distinction from that of the minority, in this country, with which the State has any thing to do. The State, as such, has nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the people one way or the other, beyond affording them a just21and equal protection in the exercise of their religious rights, no matter what may be their religion, and no matter whether it be true or false. What the State should do in regard to popular education is to provide; at the public expense, adequate facilities for the secular instruction of the children of the land, and leave all persons who wish to make provision for their religious education to do so in their own way and to pay the bills thereof. Our political system admits of no other solution of the school question so far as the State is concerned; and when Catholics and Protestants come to this reasonable conclusion, and content themselves with it, they will see things as they are, and have no school question to settle as between themselves. All efforts to make the State a party to their religious preferences are simply efforts to get the State out of its proper sphere, and must at last, and should, end in failure.—Independent.