p. 235 | Reply by N. J. BOWERS

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Aug 21, 1889

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 4, No. 30.

Reply.

By N. J. BOWERS

ESTEEMED FRIEND:—It seems you favor me with another open communication. This time it is “Nehemiah the Tirshatha, No. 2.” I had no idea that my innocent little piece could have the effect of stirring up any National Reformer very much, but from the flutter of your two replies, I conclude that game has been hit.

1. You begin by saying: “In my first criticism upon your article in the SENTINEL of the 17th, I showed that National Reformers are not in favor of a union of Church and State as you charge.” Since copying the above I have read that “criticism” carefully over for about the sixth time, and can positively say, You have not shown any such

thing. You have not even attempted to do so. You have not even mentioned the National Reformers except to announce that you are one. This is all. You probably allude to them when you request that your errors in expressing your opinions be not charged up to “others,” but further than this you have not gone. I do indeed make the charge as you allege, and think it can be proved without any trouble at all. You Reformers, I am well aware, are quite touchy on this point. You well know how decidedly opposed the American people are to any such scheme, and it is but natural that you keep this part of your business out of sight. But you say positively that you are opposed to any such union. O yes, of course you are. You are opposed to that kind of a union which it is impossible to get, that is, the allying of one particular denomination with the State. You are opposed to this because there is no danger of ever getting it, but you are not opposed to your kind of Church and State union! You are not opposed to the union of religion and State. Don’t you know you Reformers have coined this pretty phrase to quiet all suspicion? Church and State would be a terrible thing, but religion and State would be just the thing! The religion you wish allied with the State is the Christian religion. Well, between the Christian church and the Christian religion there is no distinction. The church is the embodiment of the Christian religion in this world, and in seeking to unite the Christian religion and the State, you seek to unite the Christian church and the State. The doctrines of the religion of Christ are the doctrines of his church, they cannot be separated—they are one. When you unite the one with the State you unite the other. So you gain nothing by this play upon words. You virtually declare yourselves in favor of a union of Church and State.

2. The constitution of the National Reform Association declares in favor of such union. I have before me the Christian Statesman of July 4, 1889. In this number the constitution appears twice. It being the “glorious fourth,” that paper showed its exuberant patriotism by giving its readers a double portion of Christian statesmanship.

The object of the Reform movement is there stated to be to “place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” Now what are “all Christian laws, institutions, and usages” but the doctrines and practices peculiar to Christianity; and the Christian church is, or professes to be, the exponent and guardian of these. Indeed, as I have said, the church is but the living and visible body of “all Christian laws, institutions, and usages.” Take these away and the church will be taken away. The church cannot exist apart from them. So again, the National Reformers favor union of Church and State. If the tenets and institutions and usages of the church obtain recognition in our national Constitution—“in the fundamental law of the land”—there will be Church and State union out and out. So we have another count by which to make good our charge. Now don’t quibble here, my friend, and say that it is only “the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our Government—chaplaincies, national thanksgiving,” etc. I reply that our government has no “Christian laws, institutions, and usages.” The Constitution of the United States knows no such “laws, institutions, and usages.”

Go a little further back in Article II. of the National Reform constitution, and you will find among the objects of the association that a prominent one—indeed, the first one mentioned—is the desire to “promote” the observance of the Sabbath. Now by Sabbath is meant Sunday—an institution of the church—and in asking the government to take “action” in its behalf is to ask that the State “promote” the observances of the church to the extent of directing the people how they must regard one of its institutions. If the State can “lay down the law” in respect to one of the institutions of the church; why may it not do so in others, and in all?

In the only true theocracy there ever was in this world, viz., that of ancient Israel, the observance of the Sabbath was promoted by the State. Its violation was punished with death even. Ex. 31:14, 15. The theocracy of the Hebrews was Church and State. The Hebrew State was the Hebrew Church, and the Hebrew Church was the Hebrew State. They were one and inseparable. In every union of Church and State since, from the days of Constantine till now, Sunday has had a prominent place. When this Government takes Sunday and its observance under its fostering care, Church and State will result again. It will be an important “link” in the union. Other statements in the constitution which go to prove Church and State tendency might be cited, but these must suffice.

3. I showed in my first article that the National Reformers want a theocracy. The kind they wish to get will be as truly one as was the commonwealth of Israel. This is what they say. See Cincinnati National Reform Convention Report, 1872.

That commonwealth, as I have shown, was a union of Church and State. Therefore, again, the National Reformers favor a union of Church and State.

4. The Rev. T. H. Tatlow, National Reformer, in the recent Missouri Sabbath Convention, admitted that they wanted such a union. His idea was that the Church and the State should exercise “separate jurisdictions.” The church’s jurisdiction should be primary, the State’s secondary. Here we have the church dominating the State. He said the union should be “limited,” something like, I suppose, the union between master and servant. The master does the ruling, and the servant does the obeying.

I trust enough proof has been given to convince, at least others, that the National Reformers do favor a union of Church and State, your and their denial to the contrary notwithstanding.

5. You say, “I showed also, that the theocracy of the government of Israel was not much different from what we should have now in any Christian nation.” I am aware that you said as much substantially, but you came far from showing it, or proving it. That is another thing. Your article throughout, permit me to say, was remarkable for want of proof to sustain your positions, and the illustrations used, defective. You say, indeed, that the commonwealth of the Hebrews was a republic, and you italicized the word, making the statement emphatic. You also said, “All governments should be theocracies and republics, not monarchies,” and that “we should have a pure republican theocracy.” You offered no proof at all that the Hebrew commonwealth was a republic. I proved, on the contrary, by citing Bible facts, that no such republic existed there. The proof might be greatly extended. I suggest, sir, that you intersperse your statements with proofs. It will break the dull monotony of assertion. The idea of “a pure republican theocracy” was not derived from any model God ever made. It is National Reform property. You define the term “pure republican theocracy” to be “a government in which the will of God would be the supreme law by the consent and vote of the people.” In ancient Israel the will of God was “the supreme law,” but not by “the consent and vote of the people.” God attended to that matter himself. The people’s business was to obey “the supreme law,” not to make it. It was supreme just the same, whether the people consented to it or not. It was supreme in spite of their consent and vote. And they were absolutely forbidden ever to attempt an amendment by adding to the words written or by diminishing aught from it. A “republican theocracy” is a figment of the National Reformer brain, and the conception is in perfect keeping with National Reform ideas and schemes in general.

6. One of my “additional charges,” you notice, is that the National Reformers would tax the people to support the church. My reply in brief is the words of District Secretary Foster in the Statesman of February 21, 1884, quoted by me in the SENTINEL of July 17, 1889. I might add that, as the Reformers propose to disfranchise dissenters, and to drive all out of the country who oppose them, they might in all probability think it right to make a draw on them before they went.

7. “Marriage is a civil contract, not religious.” The marriage law of ancient Israel was good. “God made it. The people had said amen to it.” “All the people in their happiest time had given consent to it.” Paul, “a correct exponent of Christian law, says, ‘Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,’ and Christians should accept and preach the divine law given to Israel.” “If all the people of the United States were Christians, and were also of one mind as to God’s law of marriage, government—the civil department—should punish nominal Christians who marry heathen wives.” Indeed! But if all the people were Christians and were “of one mind as to God’s law of marriage,” why should they want to break God’s law by marrying heathen wives? And if all the people were Christians where would the heathen wives come from? I suppose the “nominal Christians” would have to import them! It comes to this, as I hinted in my article in SENTINEL, Vol. 4, No. 26, that in their “millennial days” the National Reformers will prohibit marriages with foreigners. You endorse it all. You agree to it. When they get the majority, which is practically all the people, as we can all see, then they will rule with a high hand, and say who shall and who shall not marry. I didn’t come far short of the mark, did I? You have turned the light on and made it all plain.

8. No, I see no flaw in your logic, for the good reason that I don’t see the logic! And as there is no logic, the ergo will have to “go.” Now, my friend, I will leave you for the present. Believe me, I have written in all respect and I believe you have. Let the agitation go on. Would you could cut entirely loose from the National Reformers and “not agree with them” in any of their revolutionary schemes. Their aims are dark, and truly un-American.

Truly your friend, N. J. BOWERS. Fresno, Cal.