Newspaper Page Text
7 i rOV f V Prominent- members of
Radical r al v* . . .
arc . apprehensive that the an
t' , nien t of his Cabinet will lead to a
,]- 'j, the organization. The opinion
that , he wili ! gnow
' " considerations in his selection of
Onbinef appointments.
]>,r TO Regulate the Price of Cot
rpu.,f is a very stupid bill inti u-
T 0V _i iiat .
, v .| t he Senate by a very stupid
pa tor i named Spencer, from Alabama.
, the price of cotton, and to
...vr fiee the growth of the same. ’ Mr.
J. ,n (T i belongs to that class known as car
.ji;,,rcrers, and this accounts for his
stupid ignorance.
I>, Rrowni.ow. — The people of
Tciinc-'sce are looking hopefully forward
, t deliverance from the rule of Parson
j>,. ow ilow, who is to take his seat in the
, S. Senate on the 4th of March. Mr.
( ; ~v rjf.w has all the qualifications for a
. ,t ii the Senate as it now stands.
Immigration —There has been a great
hilling off in immigration to this country
doth from Ireland and Germany during
the past year,some thirty thousand fewer
having entered at the port of New York
; n as compared with 1867. The
iiS q,7t ed causes are that the supply in both
countries is falling off, and that handicraft
I ccupations are not now so remunerative
hen- as they were wont to be, while the
expenses of living are much higher.
SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT “COMMON
SCHOOLS."
Tor, there is much more to be said on
this subject. Heart and soul, and on
principle—and perhaps, at times, with
bitterness —we oppose the Common School
system.
In a country of infidels, it would be a
proper system. Among a people indif
ferent to all particular forms of Chris
tianity, it would be an admirable system.
But here, as existing in our midst, we de
nounce the system as unjust , no matter
what or how many so-called laws may be
urged in its defence; as immoral in its
tendencies, no matter what sophisms,
misnamed arguments, may be advanced
in its favor; as irreligious in its character
and consequences, no matter how loudly
its advocates may boast of its apparent
benefits; as injurious to the well being of
society, no matter how it may be lauded
asoncofthe main means of social progress,
as one of the supreme humbugs of the
day, which, because it is a humbug, has
taken such deep hold on shallow people.
And first, it is an unjust system. All
are taxed for educational purposes; to all,
directly or indirectly, in greater degree
or in less, should flow the benefits of the
tax. The tax is general; in the enforcing
el if there is no religious discrimination
made. But in the using of the tax there
'o religious discrimination. And that
discrimination is not accidental —it is
intentional. The text-books used, the
rules and regulations, the details of the
yst' 11, arc antx-Cathohc. Thus the
{ -ada la-6 of the country are forced to pay
senooi-faxes, the only benefit from which
accruing to them is that, it they have a
limid, they may send their children to
schouis which they are obliged to assist in
maintaining, in order that their children
nay he insulted with .calumnies against
lIU lr Church—which calumnies they must
murn aay by day—these calumnies being
an essential element in the Common
S "' h<) i education. That is, a. Catholic is
< ■ aged to pay taxes in order to advance
aiid-1 atholic education. Where is the
j Uist ’ c f such taxation ? Catholics pav
ing luxes f >r the benefit of Protestantism !
money oi Catholics expended for
’• purchase of books bitterly hostile to
1,1 u • ’1 that be justice, the word
iuive changed its meaning. The
'•' v ‘ c,n maybe in accordance with law,
but it is certainly at variance
1 “‘i dm law which runs this wise : “Do
!!i “° others as you would have them do
unto you/’
rpi *■ .
ia;!t system is unmoral in its tenden
c : be the simple reason that, just
u the young minds need most of
r °'tp ou to mould their thoughts, they
u * V( ' :,s little of religion as possible,
ai!<l tlmt little itself is sectarian. The
Y boasts of being liberal to all forms
of religion. Liberality to all is indiffer
ence to each ; indifference to each bears a
strong family resemblance to infidelity.
1 hoy look like brothers. The system
rejects religious influence; or, at least,
employs such influence as sparingly as a
miser does his money. And yet the
system pretends to educate —to educate
the whole man—and, at the same time,
banishes just what man needs the most,
tb.e most essential element of true educa
tion Religion. It fills the head with
smatterings of this, that, and the other
tuing, but it leaves the heart void of
Religion. A heart void of Religion will
soon be filled—we need not say with
what.
That system is injurious to the well
being of society, because its education is
false—false because it gives scarce a place
at all to Religion.
It is one of the many humbugs of this
age—worse than most—yet, perhaps, not
quite so bad as the “Common Pulpit.”
Next week we return again to the subject.
THE COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM,
Reverend and Dear Sir ;
Richmond, Jan. Ist, 1868.—1 read in
your valuable paper of the 26th ii 11., a
communication from a correspondent,
asking your opinion on the Common
School system. lam glad this matter
is being discussed before the people;
doubly so that you frown down this inno
vation of our rights —“the education of
our children”—and that it has met with
the people’s indignation generally.
Last summer the citizens of Richmond
were also threatened with tin's new sysn
tern. An ordinance was framed by one
of the Republican members of the City
Council. One A. Washburne, “from
Connecticut,” is the Superintendent of
all the colored free schools that were
opened here on so large a scale In the
first two years after the war, and which
are “growing so beautifully less.” This
project of Mr. Washburne’s would have
insured him the handling of a large capi
tal, besides giving employment to a large
Humber of Northern schoolmarms and
professors, and would have entailed on
this community an expense of not less
than from fifty to sixty thousand dollars
per year. A pretty round sum that is to
be pressed out of a people already groan
ing under a tax unbearable. This ordi
nance, of which I send you a copy, had
been nicely cut and dried, and fully ex
pected to have been carried by a ma
jority of the Council; but the scheme had
been anticipated by some of the members,
and with the aid of two of the city pa
pers—the Examiner and Southern
Opinion —who exposed and opposed this
innovation and imposition, and Wash
burne, so far, has been defeated ; but I
fear, he is but waiting, patiently watch
ing his opportunity, and will again in
troduce it in Council.
The Catholics of .Richmond have their
free schools attached to their Churches.
St. Peter’s Cathedral has a free school of
some sixty boys ; St. Patrick’s Church,
on Church Hill, has at times over ninety—
the school rooms furnished by the Kev
erend Pastor and the teacher paid by
St. Vincent Conference ; St. Mary’s
(German) has over seventy pupils—the
room furnished by the Reverend Pastor
and the teachers paid by the congrega
tion; besides St. Joseph’s Orphan Asy
lum on Marshall street, tinder the care of
the Sisters of Charity, who support,
clothe and educate sixty-three orphan
girls, and have a Free School of from
ninety to one hundred scholars. Another
house of these indefatigable and admira
ble ladies, on Church Hill, has seventy
scholars, ana, in no instance, is an ex
clusion made on account of creed—all
are received, and receive the like atten
tion, Protestant as well as Catholic.
Last year the City Council very kindly
donated out of the City Treasury one
thousand dollars apiece to St. Joseph’s
and to St. Patrick’s, and have again this
year placed to their credit a similar
amount. A Subscriber.
For tiie Banner of tlie South.
THE COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM.
Reverend and Dear Sir:
Accepting the invitation you extended
to me in your paper of the lititii uit., in
the spirit in which you gave it, 1 will
make a few remarks ou the subject of my
former communication and your comments
thereon.
The Common School system of New
Lngiaud is vicious, and should not be in
corporated on Southern civilization; it
will be a /ungus and exotic engraitment.
tt is a great pleasure to know that your
voice and pen wiil be wielded for the pro
tection ot Southern civilization against
the demoralizing influences of this hot-bed
plant ot New England— a superficial
and sensational system of education, reli
gion and politics. Her energy, enter
prise and charity, we can, perhaps, emu
late and admire. Her errors we should
eschew and avoid. Her impudence, self
sufficiency, phariseeism, and other isms,
we should neither imitate nor attempt to
improve. They must have their day,
and then go down to a merited oblivion.
Let me quote from a letter received a
few days since, from Connecticut, written
to me by an old citizen of the “land of
steady habits.” He says : “It is gene
rally believed here that from fifty to one
hundred thousand prisoners were starved
to death at Andersonville, Ga., and it is
alluded to in the pulpit. A preacher,
not long since, speaking of the two po
litical parties, said he had noticed that
nearly all the prosperous business men
that he knew were Republicans, and of
the old Abolition school. Another told
us that he was an Abolitionist dyed in the
wool. Reading books of various descrip
tions, even Sabbath School books, have
much in them to prejudice the young and
old against the South, notwithstanding
slavery no longer exists. It is surprising
to see how careful many are to resort to
measures to teach the rising generation
to dislike and even hate the Rebels, as
they are pleased to call them.”
Now, sir, how can such teaching avail
any good ; and is it not interwoven into
the texture of New England society, and
made the staple of its teaching in the
Common Schools and Pulpits there ? Can
such a system be wise? Is it Christianly ?
No-no, sir! Christ, his Apostles, and their
true successors, never made malice, envy,
hatred and uncharitableness ihe virtues
they inculcated. The Common School
system of New England is a partisan, Puri
tan and Pharisaic system—it leads down
ward, therefore, is vicious. If elevated
character is developed under its influence,
it is done in spite of the system. The
learning and morals it teaches are neither
sound nor euduting—they are superficial
and sensational, not profound and solid.
Agreeing with you, in most you say in
your comments on rny former communi
cation, I will cal 1 your attention to ihe
following remark : “We might not go as
far as our correspondent in the assertion
that “the Catholic populations of Germa
ny and New England are more intelli
gent and virtuous’ (the virtuous we ad
mit ) ‘than the Protestant populations of
those countries/ but we would say, and
are ready to prove, that, compare them
class by class, from the lowest to the
highest, the Catholics will not suffer
from the comparison on the score of in
telligence, while they will have the ad
vantage on the score of virtue.”
Now, this is substantially what I said :
If' they are equal in intelligence, and one
is superior in virtue, then that one is su
perior in virtue and intelligence. Fob
virtue turns the scale in my estimation
Is not virtue and Christianity the highest
wisdom ? My standard of virtue and
intelligence is founded on true Religion.
Such is the standard of the Church and
the Bible. By this standard, Bossuet and
Fenelon were of superior virtue and
wisdom to Des Cartes and Voltaire ; but,
by the standard of men, the last, perhaps,
would outrank the first. How would you
compare Athanasias and St. Chrysostom
with Bolingbroke and the Earl of Shaftes
bury; or, Fius IX. with Frederic the
Great, or Spinosa. You and I, perhaps,
have the same opinion of i lie world’s
standard—have we of the Divine i You
comprehend my drift.
L hope you will pursue the subject, in
the vain of your article of the 20th uit.
Expose this Northern hybrid— bare it to
the bone. Pm corn s.
[For the Banner of the South. I
THE ORIGIN OF THE BAPTISTS.
no. m.
We believe that we made it plain to
every reader of ordinary capacity, that
the Church of the first century and the
Baptists of the present day, di tie red wide
ly in their doctrine and practice—their
faith and order. The great Mosheim, in
speaking of the Anabaptists—and from
his words Dr. Lord takes great comfort
—says : “ The true origin of that sect
which acquired the denomination of Ana
baptists by their administering anew the
rite of Baptism to those who came over
to their communion, and derived that of
Mennonites from the famous man to
whom they owe the greatest part of their
felicity, is hidden in the depths of anti
quity, and i», of consequence, extremely
difficult to be ascertained.”
From this sentence, Dr. Ford draws
the astounding conclusion that those depths
of antiquity, of which Mosheim speaks,
must, necessarily, be the earliest ages of
Christianity—in fact, the very first cen
tury, for it is treating of that century
that the partial quotation from Mosheim
appears ; but, when it is considered that
Menno, the famous man to whom they
are so deeply indebted, was born in the
year 1505, and died in 1561, and that
Mosheim regarded him as one of their
most celebrated leaders, he could not
have regarded them as having any con
nection with those famous personages
who guarded the Church of the earlier
centuries.
Dr. Ford calls upon Moslicim to sustain
him, and lie must take all that Mosheim
says and means, whether it makes for
him or against him. When Mosheim
speaks of Menno as their famous man,
their most celebrated leader, he surely
never intended to convey the idea that
St. Peter, St. John, St. Paul, St. Igna
tius, St. Clement, Polycarp,or Polibyns,
had any connection with the Baptist
Church, or that the depths of antiquity,
in which their oiigin was shrouded,
reached anywhere near the days of those
old worthies.
Dr. Ford was unfortunate in his choice
of witnesses. It is not allowed to cast
discredit on your own witnesses. You
must take all he says ; and it will not be
allowed to interrogate him, and then con
tradict him; nor can you garble his testi
mony, or select from it only such por
tions as you appear to be pleased with,
and which seem to suit you. The whole
context must be considered. If then,
Menno, of ttie sixteenth century, be that
celebrated character to whom the Bap
tists owe the greatest part of their pres
ent felicity, to what sector class of Chris
tians did St. Paul and St. John, St.
Clement, and St. Ignatius belong ? Sure
ly they were more famous than Menno.
Surely they were famous before Menno.
Their names were sounded wherever a
Christian bent his knee, wherever a hymn
was raised to heaven, from whatever
land a prayer ascended to God. Their
names were among the most celebrated
of Christianity for fourteen hundred
years before Menno was born. So that
in the first century of Christianity, the
question had not been thought of, “where
did the Baptists come from ?” They
certainly did not spring from St. John, or
St. Paul, St. Peter, or St. Clement.
They did not belong to the Church of those
ancient guardians of the one faith and
one baptism. The most celebrated of the
Baptists, according to Mosheim, to whom
Dr. Ford has appealed, lived in the six
teenth century, while the most cele
brated of the Christians lived in the first
century, therefore tiie Churches to which
these celebrated personages belonged
were entirely different; and no matter
how deeply shrouded in antiquity the
origin of the Baptists may be, they could
not have a common source with those
giants of the early Church.
Need we go further than this ? Need
we survey the weary miles on the track
of time with Dr. Ford ? We started on
the survey, however, with him, and we
will continue to the end, although we may
rest here and examine our charts, well
satisfied that no Baptists had their origin
in this century.
Dr. Ford claims the Tertullianists as
among the early fathers of his Church.
Weil, who were they ? Followers of Ter
tulliau, of course. And who was he?
Dr. Tertullian was a celebrated character
m the end of the second century and the
beginning of the third century. Far more
celebrated and famous than was Menno in
the sixteenth. What doctrines did he
teach in his time ? What practices did
he say belonged to the Church in bis
day ! Tertullian shall speak for himself,
and decide the question as to whether he
could hold fellowship with the Baptists of
to-day. We appeal to Tertullian :
“ We sign ourselves with the sign of
O C 5
the cross in the forehead whenever we
go from home or return, when we put
on our clothes or our shoes, when we go
to the bath, or sit down to meat, when
we light our candles, w hen we lie down
and when we sit.”
Do not the Baptists of the present day
regard the old habit of Tertullian, in
thus blessing himself, or crossing him
self, as one of those Popish institutions
to be abhorred ! Who ever saw a Bap
tist make the sign of the cross on his
forehead ? No one since the days of
Tertullian, or since the date of their true
origin, wherever that may be found.
But, let us bear wlial Tertullian lias to
i say on that, fundamental doctrine of the
Baptist, in common with alt Protestant
Churches, the right of private judgment:
“ VVe are not allowed to indulge our
own humor, nor to choose what another
lias invented. iVe have the Apostles of
our Lord us founders, who were not
themselves the inventors nor authors of
what they left us; but they have faith
fully taught the world that doctrine which
they received from Christ.”
flow does this declaration of Tertul
lian square with the right of private judg
ment so much insisted upon by Protest
ants in general ? Would Tertullian, if
the old gentleman, after his sleep of cen
turies, could wake up and “ revisit the
glimpses of the moan,” recognize in the
Church of the Baptists, the doctrine and
practices which he had learned first, and
then taught in the Church of his day ?
He would not find one of the present Bap
tists indulging in that superstitious prac
tice which he taught to the widows and
widowers of his time. We find the o’d
gentleman thus discoursing to the widows:
, LW for the soul of your departed hus
anc, entreating repose to him, and par
mpation in the first resurrection—
ma ung oblations tor him on the anniver
saiius o his death, which, if vou neglect,
it may be truly said of you, that, as far
as in you lies, you have repudiated your
husband. . And in his address to the wid
owers of his time, he uses the following
language: “Reflect for whose soul you
P r ay—lor whom you make annual obla
tions.”
Could Dr. Tertullian and Dr. Ford
meet on the same platform ? Could they
hold a union prayer meeting together ?
When the venerable Tertullian, whose
Church is not lost in the depths of an
tiquity, nor hidden in the mists of obscu
rity, would exclaim, “May the souls of
the faithful departed rest in peace ! May
the Lord have mercy on them !” How
would Dr. Ford shrink from the touch of
the ancient one. The old Carthagenian,
ot the year lbO, would be looked upon
by his reverend brother as a downright
Papist, filled to overflowing with the
errors of Rome.
It is said that Tertullian, after a long
life spent in the Christian faith, fell from
bis high estate, and went over to the doc
trines of MoDtanus, and for this he is ap
plauded by the Baptists. Well, it is
true that he did so; but it is equally
true that he repented of his fall, came
back to the ark, and died in the faith in
which most of his years were spent.
I here was a sect called Tertullianists, but
not in the second century. Tertullian
died in the faith of the orthodox Church
in the third century, according to Pleury,
so that although they took the name of
this celebrated man, and perhaps adopted
some ot the sentiments entertained by
him, while he was entangled in the errors
of Montanisrn, yet it was not until long
alter his death, in the third century, that
such a sect could have arisen. So that
Dr. Ford’s “Milestone on the track of
time” is not posted in the right place.
Cedric.
NEW YORK CORRESPONDENCE
OF THE BANNER OF TnE SOUTH.
Banner of the South:
The great event, politically, of the few
days past, is the row between Grant and
Congress on the subject of a repeal of
the Tenure of Office Act. This takes
from the President that power of removal
which has been pretty constantly claimed
and exercised from the adoption of the
Federal Constitution up to Mr. Johnson’s
time; and, as without this power, the
Executive patronage is not of very much
avail, it can be seen how anxious Grant
is to come into its possession on his in
auguration. Per contra , Congress is
juso as fully desirous that he shall not
have it until he shows his hand. With
the power to turn out, at will, Federal
ofiice-liolders, it can be seen that Ulysses
would be master of the situation, and it is
neither the desire nor purpose of Con
gress to put him in this position until
quite sure of him, and, perhaps, not even
then. The contest is represented as very
bitter, and the Moil” press are doing
their best to conceal the fact of its exist
ence, but not to much effect How the
row will end does not cleariy appear, but
the weight of probability is that Grant
will be beaten. It is not a little striking
mark of the wisdom which distinguished
the old school of Southern Statesmen,
that this very matter of the power of re
moval received their careful attention in
the Montgomery Congress of 1861, and
that, in the Confederate Constitution, as
there adopted, the possibility of any such
quarrel as the present was averted by the
insertion of an express provision giving
the Confederate President full power of
removal; cabinet officers and diplomats
be removable sun volmitatc, and all
other civil officers of the Executive De
partment “when their services are unneces
sary, or for dishonesty, incapacity, ineffi
ciency, misconduct, or neglect of duty,”
( Vul Constitution of the Confederate
States, Art. 11, sec. 2, par. 3.) But thus
is wisdom approved of her children. If
the additions to the old Constitution,
which were made by the Statesmen of the
South were to-day in the Federal Consti
tution, there would not only be no present
row about tenure of office, but no thieving
“l ings,” and no rascally appropriations of
the people’s hard-earned money by a
fraction of a Congress. But they’ll learn
doubtless. Even now, the superior wis
dom ot the Confederate Constitution
is attracting considerable attention, and
it will not lie at all surprising if the
Mrooly loil” confiscate that, too, after
awhile, so that we may not impossibly yet
live under the “rebel ' Constitution, with
nothing but slavery stricken out.
The tendency to put the various civic
5