Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    March 20, 1889

    “The Christian Statesman Speaks Again” The American Sentinel 4, 9, pp. 58, 59.

    ATJ

    THE Christian Statesman of January 10 criticises the course of the SENTINEL under the heading, “An Unfair Critic.” The SENTINEL does its very best to be fair all the time; we can afford to be fair; and so far as we know, we have never yet taken an unfair advantage in any argument, or in any way.AMS March 20, 1889, page 58.1

    The Statesman says it admires the consistency with which the SENTINEL “follows out its own premises to their uttermost conclusions;” but that it does not admire the SENTINEL’S “disposition to impute wrong motives to its opponents.” We do not impute motives; nor do we judge men’s motives. We not only follow our own premises to their utmost confusions, but we follow the premises of the Statesman and the Sunday-law workers, and the workers of religious legislation generally, to their uttermost conclusions also. And when, by logical deduction, following these premises to their inevitable conclusions, we find iniquity involved in it all, and expose it, that is neither imputing motives nor judging motives. It is simply reasoning from premises to conclusions. If their premises are sound, they ought not to flinch from the conclusions. As for ourselves, we are perfectly satisfied to be measured by every conclusion from every premise which we lay down. If the Statesman’s premises are correct, its conclusions cannot be wrong. And, therefore, it ought not to flinch, nor complain, nor charge us with imputing wrong motives, when we take its own premises and carry them to their inevitable conclusion, and then, finding the conclusion to embody the very principles of the Papacy, condemn the system as wicked.AMS March 20, 1889, page 58.2

    Further: The Statesman says of the SENTINEL:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 58.3

    “It has charged the National Reform Association with duplicity, with the cherishing of evil purposes which it dares not avow, and with the use of dishonorable means to accomplish the ends it seeks. A case in point is its charge that the Association is in league with the Roman Catholic power in the United States, and favors the designs of the Papacy. One ground of this accusation is the remark made by the corresponding secretary in the Saratoga Conference of 1887, in answer to a question, to the effect that an effort might well be made to find a common ground between the Protestants and the Romanists in relation to the work of education.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 58.4

    We do not remember ever to have charged the National Reform Association with the cherishing of evil purposes which it dares not avow. We have found ample employment in exposing and publishing as widely as possible the evil purposes which it does avow. There is no need of inventing charges of evil purposes which it dares not avow. The evil purposes which it does avow, and upon which it seems to pride itself, are enough, it seems to us, to satisfy any reasonable person for a life-time. It avows its purpose of enforcing upon all in this country “the laws of Christian morality,” which is only an attempt to force men to be Christians; it avows that the civil power “has the right to command the consciences of men;” it avows its purpose to tolerate only as “lunatics” and “conspirators” all who oppose its aims. These things, with scores of others in the same line, are avowals of the evil purposes which it does cherish. To discuss these things, and to show the evil that is in them, is what the SENTINEL has done; and it has been so fully employed in this that it has not had time, even if it had the disposition, to invent evil purposes which it might imagine that the association dares not avow. As to the charge of duplicity, we shall here present two extracts from the Christian Statesman itself; and we leave it for the Statesman or anybody else to judge what it reveals: In the Saratoga Convention, to which the Statesman refers, the editor of the Statesman, in arguing against the secular program of education, said:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 58.5

    “It does not satisfy the Roman Catholics, or conciliate them to our school system. Their special outcry is against the atheistic tendencies of public education, and the exclusion of religious worship and instruction from the schools gives color to the charge.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 58.6

    Then the question was asked,—AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.1

    “If we put the Protestant Bible in the schools where the Protestants are in the majority, how could we object to the Douay Version in schools where the Roman Catholics are in the majority?”AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.2

    And the editor of the Statesman said: “We would not object.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.3

    Then again the record says:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.4

    “Rev. Dr. Price, of Tennessee—I wish to ask the secretary, Has any attempt ever been made by the National Reform Association to ascertain whether a consensus or agreement could be reached with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, whereby we may unite in support of the schools, as they do in Massachusetts?”AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.5

    The Secretary—‘I regret to say there has not.... But I recognize it as a wise and dutiful course on the part of all who are engaged in or who discuss the work of education, to make the effort to secure such an agreement.’AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.6

    “Dr. Price—‘I wish to move that the National Reform Association be requested by this Conference, to bring this matter to the attention of American educators and of Roman Catholic authorities, with a view to securing such a basis of agreement, if possible.’AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.7

    “The motion was seconded and adopted.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.8

    There the editor of the Statesman argued in favor of securing the cooperation of the Catholic Church in forcing religious instruction into the public schools. He agreed that the Catholic Bible and Catholic instruction might be given in the public schools where the Catholics are in the majority. He, in behalf of the National Reform Association, accepted a commission to bring this matter to the attention of Roman Catholic authorities with a view to securing such a basis of agreement, if possible. That was August 15 to 17, 1887. Within less than two months after that, a School Board in Pittsburg elected a Catholic priest principal of a public school in a ward in which the people were almost wholly Catholics. The editor of the Statesman in his issue of October 20, 1887, said:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.9

    “Of course the priest will now feel it his duty to introduce religion into the school; and the country will watch with interest to see what kind of religion it will be.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.10

    Well, what kind of religion could it be expected to be, but the Catholic religion? And this is precisely the thing that the editor of the Statesman accepted a commission to secure; this is the very thing to which he said he would not object. He agreed that where the Catholics were in the majority, the Catholic Bible should be used, and Catholic instruction should be given, in the public schools. The Catholics were in the overwhelming majority in that ward in Pittsburg. The priest was hired as principal of the school; and if he taught the Catholic religion, the editor of the Statesman said at Saratoga he would not object. And now, not two months afterward, what does he say? In the same editorial, the very next paragraph, after mentioning the appointment of the priest in Pittsburg as principal of the school, he says this:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.11

    “The writer of these lines has recently been in a New York town where one of the two public-school buildings has been given over to the Roman Catholics, who furnish the teachers, and teach the doctrines and worship of their church, including prayers to the virgin and the supremacy of the Pope over all men and all government, the whole being supported out of the public funds. Could anything be imagined more unpatriotic or unreasonable?”AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.12

    At Saratoga he said he would not object to the Catholic Bible being used and Catholic instruction being given in the public schools where the Catholics were in the majority. He accepted a commission to secure the agreement of the Catholic Church upon that basis. But yet when, in Pittsburgh and in New York, the very thing was done to which he said he would not object, and which he had accepted a commission to secure, he innocently inquires, “Could anything be imagined more unpatriotic or more unreasonable?”AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.13

    What has the Christian Statesman to say to these facts as recorded in its own editorial columns? Upon the question of duplicity we leave it to the unbiased judgment of any intelligent person. If the editor of the Statesman shall still insist that that is not duplicity, we sincerely desire that he will print in his editorial column his opinion of what would constitute duplicity.AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.14

    Further: The Statesman says of the Saratoga proposition to secure the co-operation of the Roman Catholic Church in public schools:—AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.15

    “We still maintain that such an effort might well be made, not that we have hope of conciliating the Roman Church to the American system of education, but because their refusal to confer, or their refusal to accept American ideas when fairly and kindly and accurately stated in such a conference, would put them still more clearly in the wrong before the American people.”AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.16

    Remember that the Statesman is defending itself against the charge of duplicity; and to escape that charge it says that the Saratoga proposition was made with the expectation that the Catholics would refuse it, and because such refusal would put them more clearly in the wrong. In other words, it defends itself against the charge of duplicity by virtually confessing that that Saratoga proposition was a piece of duplicity. We hope the Statesman will try again; and we sincerely wish it better success next time.AMS March 20, 1889, page 66.17

    A. T. J.

    “Army Chaplains” The American Sentinel 4, 9, p. 67.

    ATJ

    THE Christian Statesman of January 24 announces that a bill is now before Congress, providing for the increase of the corps of army chaplains to one hundred—the number now allowed by law being only thirty-four. Instead of increasing the number to one hundred it ought to be reduced to none. The thirty-four chaplains in the army now are thirty-four too many. Army chaplains are supposed to be for the spiritual benefit of the soldiers. But they are no benefit at all, either spiritually or otherwise, to the soldiers. We know whereof we speak. We were in the regular army five years, and received a “most excellent” discharge. We have been in different garrisons where chaplains were stationed, and never in the whole five years did a chaplain visit the quarters where we were, or any of the men in the company to which we belonged; unless, perhaps, in company with the officers at Sunday morning inspection. Never was there a visit made by a chaplain to the company in which we served, for any spiritual purpose, or for any purpose, in the due exercise of the duties which he is appointed to perform.AMS March 20, 1889, page 67.1

    The fact of the matter is, chaplains cannot work for the spiritual interests of the soldiers in the regular army. They rank as commissioned officers, and are to be held, in the estimation of the men, with the same deference and military respect that is due to the officers. He has an officer’s uniform, an officer’s insignia of rank, and whenever he appears the soldier has to strike an attitude of attention and salute as he would any other commissioned officer. Thus, the very position which he holds, making as an officer, places an insurmountable barrier between him and the soldier. He cannot maintain the dignity of his rank and meet the common soldier upon the level where he is, and approach him upon that common level as every minister of the gospel must do with those whom he is to help spiritually. He cannot enter into the feelings, the wants, the trials, the temptations, the besetments of the common soldier, as one must do to be able to help spiritually, and as the minister of the gospel must do in the exercise of his office anywhere, with any person in the wide world.AMS March 20, 1889, page 67.2

    Jesus Christ set the example; he did not appear in the glory, the dignity, the rank, and the insignia of his office which he bore as the King of eternity. He laid this aside; he came amongst men, meeting humanity upon humanity’s level. He, though divine, came in human form; made himself subject to all the temptations which humanity meets. This he did in order that he might be able to help those who are tempted. The great apostle to the Gentiles, following the way of his Master, became all things to all men, that by all means he might save some. To the weak he became as weak, that he might save them that are weak; to the tempted and tried, the same, that he might save them, and bring them to the knowledge of Him who was tempted and tried for their sakes, that he might deliver them from temptation and give them strength to overcome in time of trial. This is the divine method; it is the only method.AMS March 20, 1889, page 67.3

    The appointment of chaplaincies in the United States army, with the rank, the dignity, and the insignia of superior office, is contrary to the principle illustrated by Jesus Christ in his life, and taught in his word, and frustrates the very purpose for which professedly they are appointed. The money that is spent by the United States Government in paying chaplains could scarcely be spent in a way that would do the soldiers less good. We said once before in these columns, that unless the chaplains of the United States army whom we did not see while in the army, were vastly more efficient than those whom we did see, all of them put together did not do the soldiers as much good in the five years we spent in the service, as would a single bag of white beans. In the nature of the case, as we have shown, it is impossible that they could benefit the men. They, having it devolved upon them to maintain the dignity and respect that is due to their rank, do not make any strenuous efforts to help the men. It is difficult to conceive how any man who has the Spirit of Christ, and who really has the burden to help the enlisted men of the army, could ever think of accepting such a position; because the acceptance of such a position becomes at once the greatest hindrance to his helping the men at all.AMS March 20, 1889, page 67.4

    We have said nothing upon the constitutional aspect of the question; and it is certainly an open question as to whether the payment of chaplains from Government funds is constitutional. We have discussed the question wholly upon the merit of the case. The principle shows that in the circumstances of their appointment, army chaplains cannot benefit the men; and practice shows not only that they do not, but that they do not try.AMS March 20, 1889, page 67.5

    A. T. J.

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents