The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1898-08-02
THE DUTYOF THE CHURCH
IT Is TO ELECT REPRESENTA-
TINES WHO WILL REFLECT
CHRISTIAN SENTIMENT.
OPPOSED TO ECCLESIASTICAL TYRANNY
1T is Not Mixing Church and State fer Chris
tians 10 Vote Their Sentiments for
Chrisl's Sake"

4 few days ago, at the request oil
two PRESBYTERIAN subscribers, we copied
an editorial from the North Carolina
PRESBYTERIAN on the State Aid discussion.
Below we give a reply that appears in
this weeks Biblical Recorder:
The North Carolina Presbyterian
joins issue with us in regard to several
statements made in the leading editorial
of our recent educational number, AMI
the News and Observer reprints the
PreSbyterian'S remarks. giving what pun
ports To be the gist Of the PresbyterIans
position in headlines rs follows: "Churcl
and State. The Presbyterians advocate
complete separation. The State-aid lues-
ton. & = State-aid not concern of
church. 1t is ecclesiastical tyranny fer
the Church to seek to influence the votes
of their MEMBERS
We propose to briefly examine and an
sven the Iresbyterian's points, and We
have reason to believe the News and
Observer will reprint for fairness sake
what we have to say.
The first question raised by the Pres
byterian is 4 question of fact: w have
never heard of the many presbyterains'
who are convinced that the States policy
is inimical to Christian Institutions and
Christian denominations.' it says In
answer it is only necessary to say that
we have not only heard of. but we have
seen. talked with and had letters from
many Fresbyterians who endorse oul
position in this matter unrcSorvedly. The
ACTIVITY of President Shearer before the
General Assembly Il few years ago Won.I
90 to Indicate that at that time he was
not far from holding this position. And
we can name another Presbyterian edn-
cational leader of whom rs much, If not
more, may be said. But when we wrote
the statement we had in mind the ind :
Niduals in the Presbyterian churches
Who have endorsed our position. For IN
stance, we were never more cordially en-
dorsed than when we made Il speech III
elaboration of this position 1T Red
Springs, in the heart of the Presbyterian
country. to an audience in which there
We're supposed to be five hundred Pres
byterians.
The Presbyterian further says that to
maintain that the State's policy (of
course it is implied in respect of Higher
Education) is inimical to Christian instI-
tutions and Christian denominations, is
to maintain that ignorance is better foT
Christianity than enlightenment.' This
is Il simple declaration shot through with
sophistry and without foundation in rea-
son. The Presbyterian makes the fatal
mistake Of confounding terms: Higher
Education' is not Synonymous with 'cn-
lightment." Indeed enlightmcnt may.
and to Il Christian ought always neces-
sariIy to include Christian instruction,
without necessarily including Higher Ed
u~cation. Ignorance is by no means the
alternative Of Higher Education by the
State. Here is all that the Presbyterian
can fairly say: To maintain that Higher
Education by the State is inim zeal TO
Christian institutions and Christian de
nominations is to maintain that no High
CT Education by the State is better for
Christianity than for the State to main
tain Higher Education. And upon this
proposition we take our stand. And we
have pleasure in promising that while
the editor of the Presbyterian may find it
necessary to invent Il new system of
Logic and re-Write the history of cduca-
ton i'll North Carolina to refute it, he
will not have to re-write the history
of the Presbyterian church in order to
accept it..
The Presbyterian's suggestion that
Presidents Taylor and I\ilgo are intiu-
enced i'll their positions on this question
because of the offices they hold is I'M
worthy of our contemporary. and on his
account we regret it very much. Netting
out the same measure might we not
say that the North Carolina Presby-
terrain is influenced in its position by the
fact that President Alderman, President
Mclver and President Holiday. of the
State-aided institutions, are Presbyte-
rlanSt Might we not even 60 further
and remark that the North Carolina
Presbyterian has taken it's position for
StHtG-Ilt hpC1nSa II hos Gonna Northnrn
brethren in our Western counties who
are getting State-aid in their Presbyte-
ran schools? But we make no such
charge. If we must have Il discussion,
let's have q decent one.
Here is the Presbyterian's next point:
There is nc compulsory attend
ance upon State institutions. Far
cnts can send their children where
they please. And if the State erects
an educational system and the people
support it by their patronage, it Is
the concern of the people and the
State. and not Of any churcn or
churches as such. Anything else is
ecclesiastical tyranny"
In answer to the foregoing: IF no
compulsory attendance, there is compul-
sorry support. which is worse: and this
IS the main fact. In the second place.
our contemporary prcsumes a condition,
winch IS falsc-namely, that the people
OF North Carolina support by their pat
rona&e' the States Higher Educational
system. t'or this is II discussion of
Higher Education: we will dis ,uss the
relation of Higher and Lower Education
with the Presbyterian. if it desire 81. The
Tact IS that ninc-tenthS Of tho people
or North Carolina do not support by
their patronage the States Higher Edu-
catlonal system. Furthermore tho CON
Germ of the people may he and ought
always to be the concern of the churches
For example, Liberty is the concern of
the people. Only the other lay the
Presbyterian was Wanting the acme 70.
ments of CalviniSm-of prcsbytnrianism
and of Presbyterians-for Liberty. ono
of these days we hope to see it praisino
the Presbyterian churches for making