Untitled article by C. P. B.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · February 12, 1891

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 6, No. 7

A Brief Review.

By C. P. B.

Indifference can not but be criminal, when it is conversant about objects which are so far from being of an indifferent nature, that they are of the highest importance.—Addison.

It was with a kiss that Judas betrayed his divine Master; and we should be admonished, no matter what our faith may be, that the rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of holiness.—Richard M. Johnson.

RELIGIOUS liberty has been so long enjoyed in this country that most people think that it never can be otherwise. But in this very sense of security lurks a serious danger. “It is the unexpected that happens.” Signs are not wanting, to indicate to those who have been watching the current of events, that unless the people awake to the danger a large share of their boasted liberty may slip from their grasp ere they are aware that their hold upon it is being loosened in the least. Those who have carefully noted the changes that have taken place during the past twenty years, must admit that not the least among them has been the change in public sentiment touching the subject of governmental interference in matters if not directly religious, at least closely akin to religion. The causes which have led to this change are manifold; but by far the greater part of the change is due to persistent organized effort to bring about in this Nation an alliance between religion and the State.

One agency which has been at work in this country to bring about the indicated change, is the National Reform Association, which was organized nearly twenty-seven years ago. Its avowed object is to secure such a change in the Constitution of the United States as will “place all our Christian laws, institutions, and usages on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” This is their own language, and to make this change in the Constitution would be, as they themselves admit, to recognize Christianity as the true religion, and to make the Bible the basis of all civil legislation. This they say would not be a union of Church and State, but only a union of religion and the State. But this is making a distinction where there is no real difference, as we have many times shown in these columns. We will, however, briefly restate some of the arguments which show that this would be a virtual union of Church and State.

It is certain that if Christianity is to be recognized as the true religion, somebody must define what Christianity is. That definition must be that which somebody believes, and that which is believed is a creed; for the simplest definition of creed is “that which is believed.” It matters not whether there be one article or forty articles in a creed, it is a creed nevertheless. This is illustrated in the case of the Unitarians, who have reduced their creed to a single article of faith.

Neither does it alter the case if those who unite in forming this creed should differ upon many points not defined in the creed. This again is illustrated by the fact that in almost all churches we find a multitude of various opinions held upon what are called minor points, or “non-essentials.” Churches are formed, at least nowadays, by people getting together and uniting on a few doctrines which they term “essentials.” And just so with those who favor official recognition of Christianity; should they be successful they would unite upon what they would deem to be a few “essential” points upon which the majority could agree, and that would of necessity be the established religion of the United States. What degree of toleration

would be granted to dissenters would probably be determined by circumstances.

But we will suppose, and indeed it will probably be claimed by many, that the matter would not be carried so far as we have indicated. Possibly not at first. But suppose it is only carried so far as to make the Scriptures, or the law of God, the fundamental law of the land, would the case then be very much different? It would not, for in that event some authority, either the courts as at present constituted, or some tribunal created for that express purpose, would have to decide when legislation had been modeled in accordance with the law of God. This would be absolutely necessary from the fact that even the most ultra National Reformers would not wish to have enforced all the laws contained in the Bible. It is held by everybody that many of these statutes were only for the Jews. Hence if the Bible were to be the fundamental law of the land, the courts, or the tribunal created for that purpose, would have to decide what principles of the Bible should be followed in molding our legislation; and then when laws had been passed, if they were disputed, some tribunal would have to decide whether or not these laws were in accordance with the law of God. This the National Reformers have themselves declared they would not permit the courts to do, but that the churches would decide such questions, and then the civil Government would enforce their decisions.

But it may be objected that the National Reformers are comparatively few in numbers, that their views are radical and ultra, and can never be adopted in this country. Let us examine that proposition a little. Twenty-seven years ago, when the National Reform Association was first organized, it was few in numbers and exerted very little influence. Since that time it has grown both in membership and in influence, until now it numbers among its many vice-presidents, senators, governors of States, judges of supreme courts, editors of newspapers, judges of district courts, presidents of colleges, besides many other leading men. But more than all this, it now has several powerful allies which it did not have five years ago, viz., the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Prohibition party, and the American Sabbath Union, while no inconsiderable part of the Farmers’ Alliance is looking in the same direction, as is indicated by action taken in the Osceola meeting.

Perhaps none of these organizations are at present in favor of going quite as far as are the National Reformers themselves, but they advocate the same principles, and whether they realize it or not, when once started on the National Reform road it will be impossible for them to stop short of the logical conclusion, without repudiating the very principles which they now hold dear. The case of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union will illustrate this. They have declared that it is their object to make Christ “this world’s king,” “king of its courts, its camps, its politics,” and that his will is to govern all things. That is simply putting into a little more poetical language the declaration of the National Reformers themselves, that the Bible shall be the fundamental law of the land, and everything that logically follows such a course as that would follow the other.

Again, many will object to classing the Prohibition party with the National Reformers, but as we regard it, that is where they belong. They have repeatedly declared in their platforms, both State and national, in favor of Sabbath legislation, and for such a recognition of religion as would make it necessary for our courts to decide religious questions. They have not gone so far, it is true, as either of the other organizations referred to, but they are in a fair way, sooner or later, to reach the same conclusion. In fact, they must do it or repudiate past utterances.

As to the American Sabbath Union, so called, it is so closely identified with the National Reform Association that none can deny that its tendency is in the same direction. It advocates governmental interference in matters of religion; and altogether the organizations named form a gigantic religious combination to effect a political object; and this, a committee of the United States Senate declared in 1828 was dangerous. The question then up for consideration was a petition to suspend the carrying of the mails on Sunday. The committee in reporting on that petition said:—

Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are, in the opinion of the committee, always dangerous. This first effort of the kind calls for the establishment of a principle which, in the opinion of the committee, would lay the foundation for dangerous innovations upon the spirit of the Constitution, and upon the religious rights of the citizen. If admitted, it may be justly apprehended that the future measures of the Government will be strongly marked, if not eventually controlled, by the same influence.

This was true then; it is none the less true now.

But this is not all; if it were, the danger would be small indeed compared with what it really is. It may be thought by some that if even Protestant sects could unite to carry out a scheme of this kind, it would be impossible for Protestants and Catholics to unite in it. So it seemed a few years ago, but times change, and people with them, and religious bigotry as well as politics makes strange bedfellows. In an article in the Christian Statesman of August 31, 1881, Rev. Sylvester Scovel, writing of the desirability of uniting with Roman Catholics for the purpose of securing so-called National Reform, said:—

We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, and the time has 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.

The same sentiment was expressed by the Christian Statesman, December 11, 1884, in these words: “Whenever they [the Catholics] are willing to co-operate in resisting the progress of political atheism, we will gladly join hands with them.” This shows what Protestants are willing to do. But let us see how the Catholics look at this. We have their answer given in the Baltimore Congress of 1889. In the platform adopted by that Congress, the Catholics say:—

There are many Christian issues in which the Catholics could come together with non-Catholics and shape civil legislation for the public good. In spite of rebuff and injustice, and overreaching zealotry, we should seek an alliance with the non-Catholics for proper Sunday observance.

When two parties are so earnestly seeking each other, there can be no question but that they will soon come together. For the purpose of “resisting political atheism,” by which they mean the secular theory of government, which has been, thus far, the prevailing one in this country, the Catholics and Protestants, so called, are now virtually one; for they have the same object in view. And that the possibility of such a union is not an “iridescent dream,” but a stern reality is demonstrated by the fact stated in the January number of Our Day, namely, that in the recent Sunday-law campaign in Los Angeles, California, “the entire Catholic clergy was brought into co-operation,” with the Rev. Edward Thompson, a Protestant minister, and Pacific Coast Secretary of American Sabbath Union, and with other Protestants associated with him. If in 1828 there was danger in a combination formed by some sixty thousand Protestants to accomplish a political object, viz., the discontinuance of mails on Sunday, how much greater is the danger when over eight million Catholics unite with an equal if not larger number of Protestants, to demand, not only the discontinuance of the mails on Sunday, but that the Constitution of the Nation shall be molded “according to the principles of the church.”

There is danger; and not the least danger lies, as before intimated, in the fact of the indifference of those who, while not in sympathy with this National Reform scheme, do not actively oppose it, and think that it can never amount to anything. Americans would do well to remember that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” C. P. B.