“Positive religious instruction is the duty of the family and the church, which has the commission to teach all nations the way of life. The State cannot be safely intrusted with this duty.”AMS May 1888, page 33.2

That is all true. The State cannot teach Christian religion, or Christian morality, because, as we showed in the April SENTINEL, it has not the credentials for it. That work is committed to the church alone. It is the church which is “the pillar and ground of the truth.’ It is the church which was commissioned to go “into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” It is with the church that Christ promised to be till the end of the world. Without the presence and help of the Holy Spirit, no religious teaching can ever be effectual. But it is the church, which is “an habitation of God through the Spirit.” None of these things are spoken to the State, nor of the State. None of these things pertain to the State. But without these things no effectual religious instruction can ever be possible. Therefore it is perfectly certain that the State never can, with any propriety whatever, take it upon itself to give religious instruction. It is indeed true that “the State cannot be safely intrusted with this duty.”AMS May 1888, page 33.3

But, as in this we perfectly agree with Doctor Schaff’s statements, the reader may query wherein we sufficiently disagree with him to justify the writing of an article on the subject? It is in this: Although the doctor grants that to the church and not to the State belongs the work of imparting religious instruction, yet he insists that religious instruction shall be given in the public schools at the public expense. Now, as this work belongs to the church, and cannot be intrusted to the State, and as this work must be done in the public school, at the public expense, it therefore follows that Doctor Schaff proposes that the church shall use the machinery of the State with which to do her own work. In this way he makes the public school a “link” between Church and State. But we deny the right of the church to use the State for any such purpose. We protest that the church shall do her work, herself, with the means which God has appointed her, and with no other; for whatsoever is more than this is sin. If the church cannot do her own appointed work with the means which God has appointed her, she cannot do it at all. If the church cannot impart religious instruction without the help of the State, she cannot impart it with the help of the State. If the church possesses enough of the presence and power of the Spirit of God, to make her instruction effectual, she will not need the help of the State; and if she lacks that power her instruction will not be effectual even though the doors of every public school building in the Nation be opened to her.AMS May 1888, page 33.4

It is particularly interesting to notice the Doctor’s plans for imparting religious instruction in the public schools. He says:—AMS May 1888, page 33.5

“The Catholics certainly have a right to demand the Douay version as a substitute for that of King James, and both might be read, the one to the Catholic the other to the Protestant pupils.”AMS May 1888, page 33.6

There are some questions that we should like to have answered on this proposition: 1. Is the same teacher to give instruction from the Douay version to the Catholics, and from King James’s to the Protestants? or shall there be two teachers—a Catholic and a Protestant—in every school? 2. If the Catholics have “a right to demand the Douay version,” and the Protestant, have a right to demand King James’s version, then why is it that those who are neither Catholics nor “orthodox” Protestants, have not “a right” to demand that there shall be no version at all used in the public schools? or is it true that all rights belong alone to Catholics and “Protestants”? 3. Is it so wholly essential to the welfare of the Nation that the Catholic “demanmands” shall be satisfied more than those of any other people in the nation?AMS May 1888, page 33.7

The reason which Doctor Schaff gives, why the State cannot be safely intrusted with this duty, is that,—AMS May 1888, page 33.8

“It might teach Rationalism, as is actually done in a great many public schools and Universities of Germany, Holland, and Switzerland.”AMS May 1888, page 33.9

Therefore to make it certain that there shall be just the proper kind of teaching in the public schools of our country, he offers this plan:—AMS May 1888, page 33.10

“The State may, if necessary, allow the different denominations to monopolize certain school hours in the school building for religious instruction.”AMS May 1888, page 33.11

Let us look at this a moment. The school day consists of about six hours, and the State is to allow the different denominations to monopolize certain of these hours in the schoolroom. Of the “different denominations” there are the Catholic, Episcopalian, five of the Methodist, eight of the Baptist, ten of the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, Unitarian, Universalist, and two Adventist—this makes at least thirty-two “different denominations” who are to monopolize certain of the six school hours in the school building. Now will the Doctor have the State distribute the six hours of the school day equally among these thirty-two denominations? If so where is the State to get in any other instruction? Or will Dr. Schaff have each of the “different denominations” monopolize one hour a day in its turn? If that be it, then let us see—there are twenty school days in a month, and there are thirty-two different denominations. As it would take more than six weeks to go round once, there would be given to the different pupils but one hour of religious instruction in about six weeks. Then the same question again arises, During this round of “religious instruction” how are the regular teachers to get anything else into the minds of the pupils to any purpose? Or would the doctor have all thirty-two of the “different denominations” go to “the school building” and monopolize an hour each day all together?!! That would be Babel risen again indeed.AMS May 1888, page 33.12

And, says the Doctor:—AMS May 1888, page 34.1

“In this way the problem of united secular, and separate religious, instruction could be solved, at least to the reasonable satisfaction of the great majority.”AMS May 1888, page 34.2

It is perfectly safe to say that in this way the problem could not be solved to the reasonable satisfaction of any reasoning person in the Nation. The “different denominations” themselves would not be satisfied with it; those who belong to none of the different denominations could not be satisfied with it; nor could the school authorities be satisfied with it. The truth of the matter is, that an attempt to carry into effect any such scheme would be the utter destruction of the whole public-school system. From another sentence in the same paragraph the Doctor seems to imply that the regular teachers of the schools are to do the work of the religious, as well as the secular instruction. He says:—AMS May 1888, page 34.3

“In communities which are sufficiently homogeneous one teacher would answer; in others two or more might be chosen, and the children divided into classes according to the will of the parents or guardians.”AMS May 1888, page 34.4

A community sufficiently homogeneous to require but one teacher, would consist of but one denomination. But how many such school districts can be found in the United States? The places where two or more teachers would be required, would be of course where there are two or more “different denominations,” and there would necessarily have to be as many teachers as there might be different denominations. Or does Doctor Schaff intend that the teachers in the schools shall all be so polemically versatile that any one of them shall be able to give religious instruction in harmony with the religious views of any one or all of the different denominations? Then, again, who is to examine the teachers, and pass upon their qualifications to impart the requisite amount and the quality of such religious instruction? Oh! that important office would fall to the church, of course. And thus we are brought round again to the point which we made at the first, that Dr. Schaff’s proposition, and that of everybody else who proposes to put religious instruction, into the public schools, is only a scheme to secure to the church the help of the State in furthering her own aims, and so the “connecting link between Church and State” is to be formed.AMS May 1888, page 34.5

How it would be possible to frame a scheme of public instruction more utterly absurd than is set forth in this essay by Dr. Schaff it would be difficult to conceive. And how any man of the standing of Dr. Schaff could get off such a perfect medley of nonsense, would be surprising were it not patent on the very face of public affairs that the emasculated Protestantism of to-day has set itself to secure control of the power of the State to wield it in its own interests, and it is willing to countenance any absurd scheme, and propose any sort of a compromise to gain the support of the Roman Church, because its managers know that they cannot win without this. This is shown by another statement from the Doctor:—AMS May 1888, page 34.6

“Possibly the more liberal portion of our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens might agree to such a compromise” (as is proposed in the statements which we have quoted).AMS May 1888, page 34.7

There is a good deal being said about the danger to our institutions, from Romanism. There is such danger, but it lies not in Romanism direct, but in this degenerate Protestantism ambitious of civil power and willing to compromise with Rome to obtain it. This it is that needs to be constantly and carefully watched.AMS May 1888, page 34.8

A. T. J.

“Not an ‘Enduring Morality’” The American Sentinel 3, 5, pp. 38, 39.

ATJ

SOMETHING over two years ago the Presbyterian Synod of New York appointed a committee on Religion and Public Education to consider and report upon the following resolution:—AMS May 1888, page 38.1

“RESOLVED, That the Presbyterian Synod of the State of New York, believing that the lessons of history and the traditions of American liberty forbid the union of Church and State, discriminates between sectarianism and religion, and affirms that so far as public education is concerned, and enduring morality must derive its sanctions, not from policy, nor from social customs, nor from public opinion, but from those fundamental religious truths which are common to all sects, and distinctive of none.AMS May 1888, page 38.2

“It therefore urges upon its members the imperative necessity of opposing the attitude of indifference to religion, which appears both in public-school manuals, and in the educational systems of reformatories, and at the same time, of using every proper influence to secure the incorporation with the course of State and national instruction, of the following religious truths as a groundwork of national morality, viz.:—AMS May 1888, page 38.3

“1. The existence of a personal God.AMS May 1888, page 38.4

“2. The responsibility of every human being to God.AMS May 1888, page 38.5

“3. The deathlessness of the human soul as made in the image of God, after the power of an endless life.AMS May 1888, page 38.6

“4. The reality of a future spiritual state beyond the grave in which every soul shall give account of itself before God, and shall reap that which it has sown.”AMS May 1888, page 38.7

That is a queer sort of a resolution on religion to be passed by a body of men who pretend to know anything about the religion of Christ. In the four “religious truths” which they set forth as “a groundwork of national morality,” they certainly have made a success of getting those “which are common to all sects and distinctive of none for there is not one point in the four that is not accepted by nine-tenths of the people on earth.AMS May 1888, page 38.8

The Unitarian, the Trinitarian, the Jew, the Mohammedan, and the heathen can all accept every point named. As to “the existence of a personal God,” whether it be Buddha, or Joss, or Allah, or Jehovah, it is all right: all that is necessary is to assent to the existence of a personal God. And there is nobody that believes in any sort of a god at all who does not believe in man’s personal responsibility to him. “The deathlessness of the human soul” has been believed by the great majority of the race, almost ever since Satan told Eve that she should not die. And if a person believes that the soul is deathless, it is not likely to be very hard for him to believe that it is made after the power of an “endless life.” The fourth point is already contained in the second and third, and it is difficult to see what they want to grain by repeating it.AMS May 1888, page 38.9

But the worst thing about it is that there is not in the whole statement a word or a hint about Christ, no more than if there were no such person in existence. And yet it is proposed by a body of professed Christians, as a statement of “religious truths.” More than this, they make the whole thing but a piece of infidelity by resolving that “an enduring morality must derive its sanctions .... from those fundamental religious truths which are common to all sects and distinctive of none.” The truth is, a person may believe all four of the points named and yet not have a particle of morality in him. All men have made themselves immoral by transgression of the moral law. And no man can attain to morality except by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. “An enduring morality” can only be secured by an abiding faith in Jesus Christ. And when these men make “an enduring morality” to derive its sanctions from these fundamental religious truths “which are common to all sects, and distinctive of none,” they in that set Christ aside and present to men the hope of an enduring morality without him. But such a hope is a spider’s web instead of an anchor of the soul. God forbid that such morality shall ever become national.AMS May 1888, page 38.10

As was to be expected, the report says:—AMS May 1888, page 38.11

“The earliest efforts of your committee were directed towards ascertaining the attitude of the Roman Catholics. Archbishop Corrigan, of New York, and Vicar-Generals Quinn and Preston, besides many leading priests and writers of the Roman Catholic persuasion, were interviewed, with the most satisfactory results.”AMS May 1888, page 38.12

Now just see what that committee counts as a “most satisfactory result.” A member of this committee wrote a letter to Archbishop Corrigan, “requesting for publication a distinct statement of the position which the Roman Catholics would be likely to assume.” Vicar-General Preston answered the letter as follows:—AMS May 1888, page 38.13

“The Most Rev. Archbishop desires me in his name to say in response to your letter that the Catholic Church has always insisted, and must always insist, upon the teaching of religion with education. For this reason we cannot patronize the public schools, and are forced to establish our own parochial schools. The question, where there are many different denominations, each with its own creed, is a difficult one to settle. We could be satisfied with nothing less than the teaching of our whole faith. Protestant denominations, if they value their own creeds, ought to feel as we do.AMS May 1888, page 38.14

“Denominational schools are, to our mind, the only solution of the question. This plan should satisfy everyone, and would save the State a vast outlay of expense.AMS May 1888, page 39.1

“The points you propose, while better than none, would never satisfy us, and we think they ought not to satisfy many of the Protestant churches; while the infidels, who are now very numerous, would certainly reject them.AMS May 1888, page 39.2

“We believe that the country will yet see the ruinous effects of an education from which religion has been excluded. With sincere respects on the part of the Archbishop and myself. Yours very truly,AMS May 1888, page 39.3

“T.S. PRESTON, V.G.
“REV. GEO. SHIPMAN PAYSON.”

Then says the committee:—AMS May 1888, page 39.4

“The position of the Roman Catholics upon the question, therefore, is well defined.”AMS May 1888, page 39.5

Indeed it is, a good deal better defined than is this Presbyterian spider’s web. That is not a position at all, it is only a floating scheme trying to catch whatever element it can. What an edifying spectacle it is indeed, to see a committee from the Presbyterian Synod of New York, soliciting the alliance of the Catholic Church, and that not only to meet with a rebuff, but to be snubbed with the reminder that Protestant denominations don’t value their own creeds, and that the “points” proposed “ought not to satisfy many of the Protestant churches!” And then, more than all, to find the committee reporting this as a “most satisfactory” result! Well, well, what will the committee do next? We have not the least doubt, however, that they will do as was suggested by the National Reformers seven years ago—they will “make repeated advances,” and allow themselves to be subjected to repeated “rebuffs,” to get Rome’s “co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it.” Because, “It is one of the necessities of the situation.”AMS May 1888, page 39.6

A. T. J.

April 1888

June 1888