p. 20 | Christian Liberty by C. S. LONGACRE

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Dec 28, 1905

Christian Liberty

By C. S. LONGACRE

Reports, Notes, and Comments Pertaining to the Current History of the Rights of Conscience

_Annual Convention of the National Reform Association_

In the last article we gave the National Reform Association’s plan of operation for the coming year, and in this article we shall give some of the significant statements made, and a syllabus of the discussions.

The Rev. S. F. Scovel, D. D., who was elected president of the association for the ensuing year, delivered the annual address, “The Gospel Ministry and National Reform.” The speaker emphasized the thought that the church in the past labored to save individuals, but that the present task is to save nations. “We must save the nation first, and then the individual will have to swing into line.”

The first topic discussed in the institute was entitled, “The Fundamental Principles of Christian Civil Government.” The Rev. T. P. Stevenson, D. D., led out in the discussion. Many strange deductions were made from Bible texts to sustain their doctrine of the nation’s recognition of God and his laws, and Christ as supreme ruler over all nations.

Dr. Scovel said: “The nations in the past who have not recognized God and his laws in their laws have gone backward, and have been terribly punished by God in judgments of war and national corruption. The people of this nation are beginning to realize this, and a strong sentiment is increasing each year to have the true God recognized in the national laws of this great nation, and Christ as universal king of all nations. When this is done, it can be truthfully said: ‘The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.’”

This speaker must have forgotten two important lessons in the history of the past. The celebrated Gavazzi writes: “When Christianity was imposed by Constantine on his pagan subjects, paganism introduced itself into the church of Christ. Before, the choice of religion was free; but after he had made some laws . . . the profession of Christianity became almost an obligation. Commands and magistracies were obtainable only through the portals of this new faith; it was embraced by multitudes, but with what fervor or what motive?—A mercenary motive and a worse than languid fervor. . . . A pagan flood flowing into the church carried with it its customs, practises, and idols. . . . The church did not prevent the sin. . . . Becoming vain of having many millions of adherents, it did not closely examine their faith.”

There is no mistake emphasized more in history than the mistake of the Christian church in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, when the clergy made a rush, every time a new emperor or king took the throne of his dominion, to get him on the side of their peculiar tenets. The professed church then made legal conversions to the Christian cause on the wholesale plan, receiving vast armies and entire nations in a single day by a mere formal acknowledgment of their general or ruler. This very scheme brought trouble, dissension, and continual war between political and religious factions. Then followed the one-man power in the church and the persecution during the Dark Ages.

Another lesson of past history which these “Reformers” seem to have forgotten, is the undeniable fact that every nation of the past that has established religion by law has gone backward and has experienced national hypocrisy. All history testifies that a flood of corruption crept into the church as soon as the clergy induced the state to formulate the unholy union and legalize matters of faith.

Do not Spain and Russia still have a state religion? Have they not tried this theory of religio-political rule for nearly sixteen centuries? How do they compare with this country which shook off from the state at the very outset every shackle of ecclesiastical bondage, and refused to acknowledge even the shadow of a semblance of any form of religion in national and constitutional law? Does not the experience of a little more than a century in this republic prove that a government enjoys more of the divine blessing when the state and the church attend each to its own affairs without joining hands?

Rev. David Gregg, D. D., L. L. D., president Western Theological Seminary, gave utterance to the following sentiments: “No one can be a full-fledged Christian who does not and will not stand on the platform of the National Reform principles.”

Dr. R. C. Wylie in his syllabus on “The Application of Fundamental Principles,” set forth in printed form the following statements: “Legislative bodies should obey God’s law as to the day of rest, and enact laws for its protection. They should legislate as to the oath, prohibiting blasphemy, etc. A system of public instruction should be established whereby instruction should be given in the foregoing principles and in their application. The Judicial Department of government should act on these principles. Occasion for so acting arises in deciding cases involving the constitutionality of moral statutes, such as laws against blasphemy, for the protection of the Sabbath, etc. Cases involving the interpretation of statutes touching moral questions furnish a similar opportunity. The Executive Department of government should act on these principles, by a prompt and impartial enforcement of the law, by embodying them at suitable times in executive documents, such as messages, proclamations, etc. The officers of government should be men who believe the Christian principles of civil government, and whose characters are in harmony with them.” These statements were drawn out to their logical conclusions.

Rev. J. S. Martin, of Rochester, Pa., expressed himself thus: “The government should only choose those men as officers who are morally and religiously qualified to uphold the laws and principles of Christ as king. All others are unqualified for public office, and should not receive any votes unless they conform to, and believe in, these principles as advocated by this association.” Another speaker said: “Civil government and religion can not be divorced. We must get the religion of Christ into legal ink, and then enforce the ink to the letter. We are the champions of moral reform into law, and we alone can accomplish this great feat.” One speaker suggested that with the co-operation of the great church federation of fifty-four million adherents, their united effort would soon accomplish this great feat, and whip every opposing element into subjection.

To the student of the Bible and of history these statements need no comments. Soon we can expect startling developments in this nation.

C. S. LONGACRE.