p. 1 | What Is the Harm? by James White

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Apr 1887

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 2, No. 4.

What Is the Harm?

By James White

WHEN the cry of warning is raised against adopting the proposed Religious Amendment to our National Constitution, we are met with the query, What is the harm? If this is a Christian nation, why not say so? Or, seeing that it is desirable that it shall become a Christian nation, if there is the least hope that we can effect such a desirable object by changing the Constitution, and thereby the form of our Government, why not do so? And if Christ is really the King of nations, the King of our nation, why not acknowledge him in the “fundamental law of the land”?

All this appears very harmless and very plausible, to some, but we emphatically say, not to us. We think there is danger in the scheme. This is not a Christian nation; and no constitutional provisions, general elections, or legislative enactments, will ever make it a Christian nation. Any legal declaration that we are a Christian nation would be sheer mockery—a legal falsehood. And, as a Scripture fact, Christ is not yet constituted king of nations. We propose to show, next month, that the arguments of National Reformers on this subject are inconsistent, and contrary to the Bible. Their confident assertions are based on misapprehensions of the present position of Christ, and of the nature of his mediatorial work.

The theory of “National Reform,” as now advocated in our country, is the doctrinal theory of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. This their teachers openly avow. Now, they may suppose that they, as prime movers in the scheme, will have the highest seats in “the coming kingdom.” But we predict, and we think with safety, that they will be sadly disappointed. There is another church power, holding the same theory, which is far in advance of them in every way, as far as concerns any prospect of religio-political preferment. Of course we refer to the Catholic Church.

Our zealous Reformers may scout this idea, but we have good reasons for our belief.

1. The Reformers are perfectly willing to unite with the Catholics in their effort to change our Constitution. This has been a plea of the Catholics for a long time, as some of them have said in conversations on the future of our country and of their church. The Reformers laud the Catholics for their Church and State principles. The Christian Statesman said:—

“We cordially, gladly, recognize the fact that in South American Republics, and in France, and other European countries, the Roman Catholics are the recognized advocates of National Christianity, and stand opposed to all the proposals of secularism.”

Of course, and why not? Is not the Pope—the head of the church—“higher than the kings of the earth”? Has not “power over the nations” been committed to him? And this shows what grade of Christianity will be satisfactory to these Reformers, if only it be “National,”—such Christianity as Rome has upheld in South America, in France, and other European countries, as Spain, Italy, and Austria, and in Mexico. It is the Christianity of persecution, of the Inquisition, of the auto da fé, of the extermination of heretics or dissenters. It is Church and State, the State subordinated to the Church. Catholics have always been firm in the faith of the modern Reformers, that “the State and its sphere exist to serve the interest of the Church.” The history of the Romish Church is replete with illustrations of the principles of the National Reformers! Call up the millions of martyrs, and they will testify that the Catholic Church has been, for centuries, a most powerful advocate and administrator of National Christianity! The Statesman further says:—

“In a world's conference for the promotion of National Christianity, many countries could be represented only by Roman Catholics.”

Yes, Spain, for instance. In that highly-favored kingdom, where National Christianity has flourished and held undisputed sway for many centuries, there could hardly be found a Protestant to raise his voice in its favor. It is “represented only by Roman Catholics.” And a further reason is, that Protestants are exceedingly scarce in that country, for, in almost every part of the kingdom, National Christianity is so highly successful that people can only avow their dissent at the peril of their lives. And the Catholic Church is cordially, gladly, recognized as the advocate and representative of National Christianity by the National Reformers of America, who take delight in avowing themselves as the ardent opposers of Church and State! Consistency has no place in that association.

Rome is politic; she is persistent, but she knows how to “bide her time.” She is rather coy when other bodies make advances; and she never makes advances to them. She is too self-assured for that. What are the probabilities for the future? The Reformers have answered the question. Rev. Sylvester F. Scovel is one of the ablest of the modern Reformers. We have considered him one of the coolest and most conservative. Speaking of the common interest of the great religious bodies to uphold Sunday-keeping by law, he said:—

“This common interest ought both to strengthen our determination to work, and our readiness to co-operate in every way with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, and the time is not yet come when the Roman Church will consent to strike hands with other churches—as such; but the time has come to make repeated advances and gladly to accept co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it. It is one of the necessities of the situation.”

That they will be subjected to rebuffs is certain. Rome feels her strength, and will do nothing that can be construed into a concession. Of late many of the Protestant denominations have been “speaking to the hearts” of the Catholics, throwing out compliments, as the Statesman has done, pronouncing the Catholic Church “a branch of the Church of Christ;” all of which causes the Catholics to smile in derision. Among the foremost of those who send compliments to Rome, stands H. W. Beecher. Yet in the controversy between the bishop and his priest, McGlynn, the bishop charged the priest with attending a public meeting and sitting on the platform with Mr. Beecher! But, as Mr. Scovel says, the necessities of the situation compel the Reformers to co-operate with Catholics on their own terms. They are willing to compromise, but Rome never makes compromises to her own disadvantage. If the Romish diplomats do not make all this turn to the interest of “the church,” then they will make a new page in history.

2. The Romish Church is a political power in the United States, and other churches are not. It is a common thing, and has been for years, to hear of efforts being made by politicians “to secure the Catholic vote.” If the people were half awake they would look upon this state of things as a standing menace against our republican institutions. Who ever heard of any effort to secure the Methodist vote, the Presbyterian vote, or the Baptist vote? Why not as well as the Catholic vote? Because the right of private judgment accorded to Protestants, prevents their acting in so close concert. It is understood that the Catholics are acting “under authority”—an authority outside of considerations of duty to the country; outside of regard for American institutions; that their votes are not strictly their own, if the church authorities require them to vote in a body. Their system and church discipline require all this. Inducements have been held out to them by political parties, and, consequently, the Catholics today really govern our large cities, and these cities are great centers of political influence.

In the controversy with McGlynn, the bishop said that Catholics must avoid socialistic and irreligious organizations. But, as the report says, from which we copy: “This does not mean that they are not to take an active part in politics whenever the authorities direct them to do so.”

Here is the secret of the whole matter. Their political affiliations and movements are directed by “the authorities.” Their votes are cast in the interests of “the church”—a foreign power. And our short-sighted public men have pursued a course to unify this vote, and to strengthen its influence. And now, worst of all, the over-blind and misnamed Protestants are working in the same line, and serving the same foreign cause, for the sake of—what? Of fastening “National Christianity” upon our land, even such as Catholic Rome has bound upon the nations of Europe. “Tell it not in Gath . . . lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice.” And yet we are met with the query, “What is the harm?”

3. Not only are the Catholics courted by politicians and the “Reformers” (was ever a name so misapplied?), but our Government itself is debasing itself before Rome. The following is of sufficient interest to publish entire. It is from the Christian Statesman:—

“Politicians are already beginning to set their sails for breezes from the Vatican, which are to decide the next presidential election! A Roman Catholic journal quotes, with tokens of exultation, the following extract from a political newspaper:—

“WORTHY OF NOTE.—The fact that President Cleveland sent Cardinal Gibbons a letter of congratulation on the occasion of that prelate's investiture with the purple, is worthy of note, as indicating the change that has taken place since the time when it would have been considered a grave offense for a chief executive to notice in any way, not to speak of felicitating, a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church. One need not go back many years to arrive at such a time, and no longer ago than during the presidency of the late General Grant, considerable unfriendliness existed at Washington, in certain quarters at least, towards Catholicity. The speech on the school question, which President Grant himself delivered at Des Moines, is sufficient proof of that assertion.”

“Yes, indeed! Worthy of note and of comment too. No American citizen has any moral right to assume ‘the purple’ here spoken of. The Cardinalate is not an order of the Christian ministry, but a princedom in an alien and anti-republican court, a court which, by the Syllabus, has made war on every principle of the American Constitution. By accepting its ‘purple,’ Bishop Gibbons has accepted the yoke of this alien and odious despotism, and President Grant did right in repelling all advances of the kind. I am a friend of President Cleveland’s administration, but this must be stopped. CITIZEN.”

Now that sounds very well; the comment is truthful. But indignant “citizen” must not forget that this “anti-republican court” was making war upon nothing but a “godless Constitution”—a Constitution which, the Reformers say, it is criminal to uphold! Besides, the power that has thus made war upon our infidel Constitution is the best representative of National Christianity on earth! And National Reformers are anxiously waiting for the time when that power will condescend to “strike hands” with them; and they have already expressed a willingness to co-operate in any form which Rome may be willing to exhibit or dictate! O Reform! what a sweet-sounding word, and how appropriately applied to the work of the “National Reform Association”!

But one more proof we have to offer; and it is enough. We will let the Christian Nation tell the story in its own language:—

“A REMARKABLE AFFAIR.—The revenue cutter, W. E. Chandler, attracted a good deal of attention on Monday morning, June 21, as she steamed down the bay to Quarantine. The Chandler had been seen frequently in these very waters. There was nothing unusual about her, except that she carried a strange flag—a flag not in the international code. No vessels carry it, and in fact it is only the second flag of its kind that has been displayed in the United States. It was made especially for this occasion. What was it? A large banner bearing the symbol of the Holy See upon a white field. A Papal flag floating to the breezes from the bow of a United States revenue cutter!

“The facts are these: Archbishop Gibbons, of Baltimore, has been elected to succeed Cardinal McClosky. The investiture of the new Cardinal is attended with great ceremony. Ambassadors are sent from Rome to officially inform the new Cardinal of his election and to confer the beretta. These ambassadors were among the passengers on board the Cunard steamer Servia. A committee of reception had been appointed to go down the bay to meet them. They went, and they went on the revenue cutter. ‘Surveyor Beattie accompanied the party as the representative of the Treasury Department.’ The United States Custom flag floated at the stern, and the Pope’s flag was flying at the bow of the cutter. As the Chandler drew near, the Servia dropped her ensign twice in salute to the Papal banner, and received an acknowledgment in return.

“It was this strange flag flying from the cutter that attracted so much attention, and since it has aroused questions in many minds. Why was the Pope’s flag displayed on an American ship in American waters? Why was a revenue cutter placed at the disposal of a private committee? Why was the Treasury Department represented? Why was such unusual respect shown these Pontifical ambassadors who were coming on ecclesiastical business? They were in no sense representative men coming on public business. Our country is far famed for its religious toleration, but there is perhaps just a little too much pandering to Popery, which is, in spirit and in principle, the enemy of genuine liberty. The Roman priesthood has ever been one of the most oppressive, absolute, and degrading despotisms exercised over the minds of men. The chains of priestly domination are so strongly riveted that there can be no liberty of opinion or freedom of conscience.

“When Popery had the power it persecuted, and when it has been the weaker power it has ever aimed at the ascendancy, and its votaries have become either restless agitators or the ready tools of arbitrary power and oppression. It is alarming to see so much attention paid to the leaders of a system which has been essentially despotic, which never appeared but as a persecutor, and has ever been the ally of tyranny and the foe of liberty.”

The story is well told. Just one sentence we wish to notice. It says: “Our country is far famed for its religious toleration.” Yes, it is too tolerant—quite too tolerant. It is time this error was corrected. “Congress must establish a standard of religion, or admit anything called religion.” (Speech in Reform Convention.) Again: “There is perhaps just a little too much pandering to Popery, which is in spirit and in principle the enemy of genuine liberty.” Oh, no; it was just well-merited respect paid to the highest representative of National Christianity on earth! We have the word of the “Reformers” for it; and as for the Pope being “in spirit and in principle the enemy of genuine liberty,” will the Reformers please to tell us when and where was “National Christianity” anything but the enemy of genuine liberty? They profess so great knowledge of history, let them cite the

page of history where National religion proved itself the friend of genuine liberty.

Our point is proved. Romanism is a political power, such as the Reformed Presbyterian Church will never be. It needs no special wisdom to foretell which will be the dominating church influence when this Government is turned into a religious government, and the most popular form of so-called Christianity is placed “on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.”

Reader, American citizen, can you have confidence in the professions of the National Reformers, with such evidences of their duplicity—of their willingness to “pander to Popery” for the sake of planting in this land that form of Christianity with which Popery has so long used to enslave the masses of Europe? Yes, there is harm—there is danger ahead. If you do not wish a restoration of the Inquisition, a revival of the terrors of the Dark Ages, then turn “to flight the armies of the aliens” by preserving our liberties from the insidious attacks of the “advocates of National Christianity.” J. H. W.