p. 4 | National Reform Purposes by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Sep 23, 1909

National Reform Purposes

By C. M. S.

Democracy, Theocracy, Hierarchy

In a declaration of the Rev. J. S. Martin, at the recent National Reform institute, that there should be such a change in the national Constitution as would permit a religious test for office holders, and in the declaration of the Rev. J. M. Wylie, that this republic should be changed from a democracy to a theocracy, we have in a nutshell the whole working formula of the National Reform Association. At the close of one of Dr. Martin’s addresses, he was asked this question:—

Would you advise eliminating from the national Constitution that clause which declares that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”?

To this Dr. Martin replied:—

Yes, I would want that modified. The state has a religion of its own, and ought to make recognition of that fact. The state ought to make such provision as would see to the carrying out of the principles of that religion in the administration of its affairs. I do not see how the state can ask men to go into office and administer its affairs who are literally out of sympathy with the administration. I do not mean that there should be any ecclesiastical test.

Questioned by a judge in the audience as to what modification of that rule he would propose, Dr. Martin answered:— I do not know but that I would be satisfied with the simple elimination of that clause altogether, if we had in the preamble of the Constitution a recognition of the Christian religion. Then I think it would work itself out. I think the framers of the Constitution went a little out of their way to get that in there.

It seems to us that the speaker’s suggestion in this matter is entirely gratuitous. The framers of the Constitution understood the situation with which they were called to deal, and framed a document designed to protect the people from the very conditions which the National Reform Association is now seeking to bring about. Religious tests had been applied to office holders, and in certain States even the right of franchise was restricted to members of the established church. Out of these conditions came that Constitution, embodying principles upon which all could unite. No religious test which any one of those constitution makers could frame would be acceptable to the others who were helping to frame that document. Out of that strenuous turmoil came this white dove of peace, union, harmony, and tranquillity.

These constitution makers were framing a document which was not to be the creed of a church party, or the constitution of a select organization of men, but a document which was to guarantee equal rights to every citizen in the republic. The framers of that Constitution were not disrespectful to the Author of religion, the Head of the church, but they took him at his word. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” On that foundation they builded, and a nation came into being under the benign provisions of that document, which has stirred the admiration and wonder of the world. To its shores have flocked the oppressed from every nation under heaven. This Constitution has guaranteed not simply the rights of some of the people or the leaders of the people, but guaranteed the rights of all the people, whatever their situation, regardless of religious professions, birth, or previous conditions; and the influence of the nation thus created, has, by the just and impartial provisions of its fundamental law, helped to ameliorate the conditions of the poor and down-trodden in all quarters of the world. The insertion of that provision into the fundamental law of the land was the nation’s declaration of its guaranty to every citizen, and to every soul who came to its shores, that equality and exact justice should be meted out to him on the basis of his own manhood, rather than on the basis of any religious profession which he might make or fail to make. If its insertion stands for that, for what will its elimination stand?

The elimination of that clause from the Constitution would stand for favoritism

between man and man, putting a premium upon the profession of religion, and thereby belittling religion in making it a bait for unprincipled politicians. During all the ages, true religion has flourished more under the hand of oppression than it has when showered with the favors of a fawning state. There is no worse enemy of the true church of Christ than he who flatters her with pomp and prestige, and puts a premium upon the profession of religion.

It is for this reason that we look with the utmost degree of disapproval upon the suggestion of the National Reform Association that the Constitution should be so amended as to make a religious test in any way a qualification for any office or public trust under the government. When such a test has been made, it is prima facie evidence that ecclesiasticism is in the ascendant in the government, and that the individual’s rights are being, by the same ratio, relegated to the background. It will then be evident that the church and the state have been joined in that unholy alliance which has cursed the world for ages.

Said the Rev. J. M. Wylie in his address at this convention on August 13:—

It is a hierarchy to which persons are opposed when they say they do not want a theocracy. The rule of the priesthood in civil life has always resulted in evil; but the rule of God which is a theocracy has brought blessing. The Hebrew theocracy was only a democracy acknowledging God.

But the Lord himself chose Moses to be the leader of his people. Moses was not elected by those people to be their leader, as is the case in democracies. In that theocracy, God himself, and not the people, enacted the laws by which the people were governed. He made the laws, and gave the people the choice of obeying them or not. They did not declare, “We the people, enact thus and so,” but, “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.” Israel was not a democracy in any true sense of the word; and when Israel had broken her pledge to God again and again, we hear the Ruler of the universe making this sorrowful declaration:—

“And thou, O deadly wounded wicked one, the prince of Israel, whose day is come, in the time of the iniquity of the end, thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Remove the miter, and take off the crown; this shall be no more the same; exalt that which is low, and abase that which is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; this also shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.” Eze. 21:25-27.

The possession of the miter and the crown by one ruler, clearly indicates a theocracy, a union of church and state, in that government so represented. The miter stood for the spiritual side of the rule, and the crown for the temporal side. The removal of both these symbols of rule indicates a discontinuance of that system which God instituted at Sinai.

Because God made that declaration in reference to the close of that theocratic system of government, there came a time when the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, and when a voice in the temple was heard saying: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” That ended the theocracy in this world for all time, and God declared it should be no more until he should come whose right it is, and he (Jehovah) would himself confer upon Christ the rulership of the kingdoms of this world.

In this address, the speaker declared that to teach that the authority is from the people is to “lay the foundation of political despotism and religious intolerance.” But that principle, the rule of the people in temporal affairs, is the basis upon which the government of this nation has been carried on from the time of its establishment to the present day; and the testimony of those most opposed to its principles, namely, the leaders in the Catholic Church, is to the effect that in no country in the world is there so great freedom. Religious intolerance has been very largely eliminated; and where it has manifested itself, it has invariably been where some skeleton of the colonial system of government has been reclothed and revivified by those who still believe in the union of religion and the state.

In taking the position that the rule of the people in this country must lead to “political despotism and religious intolerance,” and that “not the will of the majority of the people,” but the law of God as interpreted by the clergy, must be the supreme law of the land, the National Reform Association has struck at the very foundation of our national structure, and set itself against the dearest purpose of the founders of the republic. More than that, they have adopted the identical principles of the Roman Catholic Church as expressed in the following:—

The virtue and intelligence of the American people are not sufficient to secure the free, orderly, and wholesome action of the government. . . . The government commits, every now and then, a sad blunder, and the general policy it adopts must prove, in the long run, suicidal. It has adopted a most iniquitous policy, and its most unjust measures are its most popular measures. . . . Religion is the power or influence we need to take care of the people, and secure the degree of virtue and intelligence necessary to sustain popular liberty. . . . But what religion? It must be a religion which is above the people and controls them, or it will not answer the purpose. . . . It can not be Protestantism, in all or any of its forms. . . . We want religion, as we have seen, to control the people, and through its spiritual governance, to cause them to give the temporal government always a wise and just direction. . . . We have no security unless we have something more ultimate than they [the people], something which they can not control, but which they must obey. . . . It is evident from these considerations, that Protestantism is not and can not be the religion to sustain democracy. . . . The Constitution, as a restraint on the will of the people or the governing majority, is already a dead letter. . . . It is a religion that can and will govern the people, be their master, that we need. If Protestantism will not answer the purpose, what religion will?—The Roman Catholic, or none. . . . We repeat, the religion which is to answer our purpose must be above the people, and able to COMMAND them. We know the force of the word, and we mean it. The first lesson to the child is obey; the first and last lesson to the people, individually or collectively, is, OBEY;—and there is no obedience where there is no authority to enjoin it.

The Roman Catholic religion, then, is necessary to sustain popular liberty, because popular liberty can be sustained only by a religion free from popular control, above the people, speaking from above, and able to command them,—and such a religion is the Roman Catholic. It acknowledges no master but God, and depends only on the divine will in respect to what it shall teach.—Essays and Reviews, Brownson [italics and small caps his], pages 370-381.

The attitude of the two organizations is thus shown to be practically identical in principle, the difference being simply as to who shall be the master of the people. C. M. S.