American Sentinel, vol. 4

January 30, 1889

“The Parent and the State” American Sentinel 4, 2.

E. J. Waggoner

There is no paper that comes we prize more highly than we do America, because of its general straightforward, outspoken, manly defense of true American principles. It is therefore with the greater regret that we see it going so wide of the mark as it does in the following paragraph:— AMS January 30, 1889, page 9.1

“Fifty years ago instruction in primary principles of the Christian religion might have been left to private schools, churches, and the family; but it was not. To-day he must be an optimistic dreamer who expects Christian morality to be inculcated among our youth through any such adventitious means. Unless the children of the republic receive some religious training in the public schools, they will go absolutely without it.” AMS January 30, 1889, page 9.2

The self-contradictory statements in this must be obvious to all. If there is so little Christian morality in this country that, unless it is taught in the public schools, the children will go “absolutely without it,” where are they going to find people who can teach it in the public schools? This one things stamps the article as the hasty utterance of one who made up his mind from feeling rather than reason. AMS January 30, 1889, page 9.3

It is not true that churches and the family are “adventitious means” for inculcating Christian morality. As a matter of fact, the Bible knows of no other means. Hear the divine rule for the instruction in the moral law:— AMS January 30, 1889, page 9.4

“Thou, shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” Deuteronomy 6:5-7. AMS January 30, 1889, page 9.5

This is family instruction in morals, the only means of instruction that God ever ordained. The highest recommendation that God could give to Abraham was this: “I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.” Genesis 18:19. AMS January 30, 1889, page 10.1

The parent is to the child in the place of God, to give it instruction in the way it should go. In the Bible we find instruction to parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; to teach the commandments to their sons and their sons sons; to correct their children betimes, etc.; but we find not the slightest hint that the State should do this if the parent fails to do his duty. The same word that tells parents to teach the law to their children, also enjoins parents to have the law of God in their hearts. Now the same logic which would take the child out of the parent’s hands, and turn him over to the State for instruction in morals, provided the parent is remiss in his duty, would also provide that the State should attempt to make the parent himself moral, if he has neglected the word of God. When the State begins to teach morals, it cannot logically stop short of assuming the whole business, and taking the place of the churches as the agent for spreading the gospel. AMS January 30, 1889, page 10.2

We read that a child left to himself will bring his mother to shame; but we have no intimation that the State is to take such a child, and train him so that he will be an honor to his parents. When the position is taken that the State must assume the responsibility of caring for children, and seeing that they have good morals, it is but a step to the old heathen custom which was advocated by Plato, and which was actually in use among the Spartans, and some other Greeks, that the State should control the matter of who shall beget children. Surely if the State has the burden of training children in morals, so as to make them the best citizens, it should have a chance to see that its burden is as light as possible. And since, from the very nature of the case, it is impossible for the State to control absolutely the matter of marriages and births, so as to secure only the best specimens of childhood, it is but another step to the heathen custom of destroying those infants which the officers of the State did not deem suitable to bring up. AMS January 30, 1889, page 10.3

We don’t say that this Government will ever do this thing, for we don’t think that it will last long enough to come to that; but it is the logical result of the parental theory of Government; and if the United States Government should exist for a hundred years after the adoption of National Reform ideas, that is just what it would come to. AMS January 30, 1889, page 10.4

In the Cincinnati Convention, in 1872, Rev. A. D Mayo said:— AMS January 30, 1889, page 10.5

“But why not divide this work, and leave the moral and religious part of the education of the citizen to the parent and priest? Because you cannot hold the parent or the priest to any public responsibility to educate the child into that practical form of religion and morality essential to good citizenship in a republican State.” AMS January 30, 1889, page 10.6

There you have it. National Reform doctrine is, just as America proposes, that the State shall take the child out of the parent’s hands entirely. If you are in favor with the State, you may be permitted to retain your child; but if your morals are not such as the State approves, if your form of religion is different from that which the State has adopted, no matter how moral you may be, then your child must be taken from you and brought up in such a way that it may be an honor to the church and the State. This has the Roman Catholic Church ever assumed the right to do, and thus National Reformers stamp their movement as the legitimate child of the Papacy. And since the Papacy is but paganism under another form, what is there to prevent them, if time should continue, from degenerating into the heathen custom before referred to? AMS January 30, 1889, page 10.7

Our position is this, and we challenge anybody to show that it is not correct: Every child ought to have good moral instruction, and should be trained to fear the Lord. The parent or guardian is the only one who has the duty of giving to the child this instruction and training. If the parent, either from indifference or incompetency, fails to do his duty in this respect, it is the child’s loss, but there is no power on earth that has a right to take the child out of the parent’s hand on this account. If the child is lost, the parent alone is responsible to God for bringing into the world a child and then neglecting its most important interest. And so we say that if the parent does not give the child moral instruction, and does not put the child in the way of receiving such instruction from the church, then the child must go absolutely without it, at least until it is old enough to act for itself. This we say without any reserve. It would be true even if the State should assume the obligations of a parent; for, since the State can do properly only that which it is ordained to do, it follows that the children whom it might adopt would, in reality, be as destitute of moral instruction as though their unbelieving parents had been allowed to retain full control of them. AMS January 30, 1889, page 10.8

E. J. W.

“Make a Note of This” American Sentinel 4, 2.

E. J. Waggoner

At the session of the General Assembly of the Knights of Labor, held in Philadelphia, November 16, Rev. W. F. Crafts delivered a speech on “Sunday Work from an Humanitarian Standpoint,” which the Journal of United Labor calls a “masterly address.” It was, of course, an appeal to the Knights of Labor to lend their influence to the securing of a National Sunday law. At its close opportunity was given for questions, when the following was asked among others:— AMS January 30, 1889, page 13.1

“Could not this weekly rest-day be secured without reference to religion, by having the workmen of an establishment scheduled in regular order for one day of rest per week, whichever was most convenient, not all resting on any one day?” AMS January 30, 1889, page 13.2

This was a fair question, and the plan suggested affords a perfect solution of the question, if the claim so often made be true, that the sole object for a Sunday law is the securing to working men of the right to rest on one day in seven, in accordance with the requirements of nature. But notice Mr. Crafts’s answer:— AMS January 30, 1889, page 13.3

“A weekly day of rest has never been se-cured in any land except on the basis of religious obligation. Take the religion out, and you take the rest out.” AMS January 30, 1889, page 13.4

Ah, just so! Thus, according to Mr. Crafts, who must be the best authority, for he is the prime mover in the matter, what they are after is a law compelling people to observe the first day of the week religiously. This is in harmony with the following utterances before the National Sunday Association assembled in Washington. Referring to the petitioners for a Sunday law, Mrs. Bateham said:— AMS January 30, 1889, page 13.5

“They are praying that the Government will pass a law that will compel the people to observe the first day of the week.” AMS January 30, 1889, page 13.6

Of course, if there can be no rest without religion, then it follows that they want to enforce the religious observance of Sunday; and if that would not be enforcing religion, and trying to compel people to be religious, we should like to know what would be. The show still further that this is the case, we quote the following statement, which we have seen in several reports, and which seems to be credited to Mr. Crafts:— AMS January 30, 1889, page 13.7

“The bill which has been introduced makes Sunday the ideal Sabbath of the Puritans, which day shall be occupied only by worship. No amusement or recreation should be indulged in, no mail handled or railroads run except under pressing necessity, with a fine of from $10 to $1,000 as the penalty for non-observance of the law.” AMS January 30, 1889, page 13.8

There you have it. The paper from which these last two quotations are made is the Lutheran Observer of December 21. Its editor was present at the Convention, and took an active part in the proceedings. Yet, in spite of all these statements, Mr. Crafts, in the same speech to which we before referred, said that “Sunday laws do not in any way interfere with true liberty, for they do not require, any man to be religious”! AMS January 30, 1889, page 13.9

Think of it! A law is required that will compel all people to rest on Sunday. It is expressly claimed that there can be no such law except on the basis of religious obligation, and that if the religion be taken out, the rest is taken out; and yet he says that such a law would interfere with no man’s liberty, because it is not designed to make men religious. With the last we perfectly agree. Such a law is not designed to make men religious, but only hypocritical. But we cannot agree with the first part, for there are some people whose liberty would be greatly interfered with, by an attempt to make them play the hypocrite. We claim the liberty to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and not according to somebody else’s opinions or practices. E. J. W. AMS January 30, 1889, page 13.10

“A Sample of Moral Obtuseness” American Sentinel 4, 2.

E. J. Waggoner

The Christian Statesman of September 27, 1888, had, as usual, a report from Secretary Foster. In it he told about a sermon which he preached in Cincinnati on “Sunday Observance,” and after detailing the compliments which he received for it, he continued thus:— AMS January 30, 1889, page 14.1

“There is a general feeling of anxiety among the people for our sabbath. They feel that something should be done, but there is a nightmare inability to do anything. A good brother said to me: ‘The Sunday paper comes to my house regularly. We began taking it during the war. We wanted the latest news from the battle-fields, and it has been coming ever since. I know it is wrong. There should not be any Sunday paper. It is an injury to society; but when others take it, we might as well have it.’” AMS January 30, 1889, page 14.2

And so, of course, he is in favor of a law that will stop Sunday papers and all other work. On the statements in the paragraph just quoted, we have just the following points which we wish to emphasize:— AMS January 30, 1889, page 14.3

1. The people do well to be anxious about their sabbath, when they themselves have not interest enough in it to keep it without being forced to do so. AMS January 30, 1889, page 14.4

2. If Sunday is “our sabbath,” as they call it, what right have they to compel people who have no interest in it to adopt it as theirs? As well might the shop-keeper compel people to buy his goods as to compel them to accept his sabbath. AMS January 30, 1889, page 14.5

3. This man is not alone in calling Sunday “our sabbath.” National Reformers, and all Sunday-law advocates, speak of “our sabbath,” “our American sabbath,” etc. This they want enforced upon the people by law. At the same time they insist that there can be no real Sunday rest secured to the people, except on the basis of religious obligation. Then it is a point that admits of no debate, that they are seeking to enforce religion on the people, and that the religion which they wish to enforce is their religion. In other words, they want to put themselves in place of God, and have the people’s sciences regulated by their will. AMS January 30, 1889, page 14.6

4. When a man has not enough moral stamina to do a thing which he believes in his heart he ought to do, without being forced to do it by civil law, how much better will the law make him? Not a particle. He will be in just the condition of the thief who has been shut up in prison, and who is honest because there is nothing for him to steal. It is such service as this that National Reformers think will bring in the millennium! AMS January 30, 1889, page 14.7

5. If they wish to know the cause of this laxness in Sunday observance, on the part of those who profess to keep it, and who even clamor for laws enforcing its observance, we can give it. It is because they do not really believe that Sunday has any claim upon them. They know full well that it has no divine sanction, and they cannot keep themselves up to the point of doing that which in their inmost heart they know is not required of them by divine law. Their appeal for a civil law shows their unbelief in there being any divine law upholding it. AMS January 30, 1889, page 14.8

We believe that these points are clear to the comprehension of every reader, and that they cannot be gainsaid. AMS January 30, 1889, page 14.9

E. J. W.