Congress Asked to Define Christianity
By L. A. S.
IN the Congressional Record of April 16 last, appears the account of a remarkable, and from our standpoint, very interesting, colloquy which took place on that date in the United States Senate, leading to a vote by the Senate on the question of setting up in this government a complete union of church and state. The subject came up on an amendment offered by Senator Quay (who, it may be remembered, was foremost in committing Congress to legislation closing the Chicago World’s Fair on Sunday, and recognizing Sunday as the Christian sabbath, in 1892) to the Chinese Exclusion Bill, which was then up for the Senate’s consideration. After some discussion which gave no hint that a motion for religious legislation was suddenly to be sprung on the national legislative body, Mr. Quay arose, and moved this amendment to the pending bill:— “Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude Chinese Christians or Chinese who assisted in the defense or relief of the foreign legations or the Pe-tang cathedral, in the city of Peking, in the year 1900. But the same may be admitted upon proper ecclesiastical and consular certificates under regulations to be prescribed by the secretary of the treasury.” This statement was amended so as to mention only “Chinese Christians.” Then Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, who is president of the New England Sabbath Protective League, arose and suggested a further amendment, by striking out the words “ecclesiastical and,” since, he said, “it is very awkward to introduce into our legislation the recognition of ecclesiastical authority, and it gives rise to very vexatious questions as to what are ecclesiastical authorities.” This further amendment was agreed to, and then Senator Quay proceeded to answer the objections that might be raised against his proposition to legislate in favor of “Chinese Christians.” One of these objections was, as he stated it, that “the Chinese would rush to the banner of the cross, all Chinese turning Christians, and no one could answer for the number that would swarm under that provision to our shores.” He would provide for this, he said, by placing “in the power of the secretary of the treasury the authority to investigate the character of those Chinese, and lodge similar authority in our own officials of the consular service upon the other side of the water.” “It may be,” he continued, “that some of the Chinese will come as hypocrites. That cannot be avoided. . . . In that they would not differ from very many good citizens of the United States to-day, but if they join the church of a Christian denomination, they must conform to its usages, and whether in earnest or not, whether it is for the benefit of their souls or not, their temporal conduct will be provided for, and in such manner that it will not affect the well-being of society. “I regard, although I do not profess to be an apostle, the Christian religion the basic stone, the living root, of all Western civilization and government and society. The people who conform to its ideas, whether sincere or not, I recognize as fit to take part in this government, at least to live in this country. So I would admit Chinese hypocrites if they fulfill the requirements of the ecclesiastical authorities.” (Italics ours.) Senator Rawlins, of Utah, obtained the floor, and said:— “Mr. President, this, to my mind, is rather a strange proposition. It proposes to give to Chinese who possess a given religion the right to come in, which might involve an inquiry as to who are Christians, and who are not Christians, and what denomination can be properly classed within that designation. It involves the further question—” Senator Quay interrupted at this point by saying that “the common acceptance of the word ‘Christian’ is one who believes that Christ is the Son of God.” Senator Rawlins then continued:— “Mr. President, the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States forbids Congress to make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. According to the spirit of the Constitution, as I understand the idea of religious liberty as embodied therein, Congress has no function and has no right to discriminate in favor of a Christian or against a Christian, in favor of a Mohammedan or against a Mohammedan, in favor of the followers of Confucius or against those of other religious denominations. It is a queer idea, it seems to me, to inject into this bill a sort of inquisition to ascertain what may or may not be the religious faith of a person knocking at the doors of the republic for admission into this American household, where all people are supposed to stand upon a footing of equality, absolutely beyond the power of the government, so far as being subjected to any imposition or any disparagement or disqualification on account of religious sentiment.” Following Mr. Rawlins, Senator Spooner, of Wisconsin, said that he likewise could not vote in favor of the proposed measure, for reasons which he proceeded to give. We quote further from the Record:— “My fear about it is that the senator from Pennsylvania would suddenly become the most successful Chinese missionary in the world— “Mr. Quay: I so suggested. “Mr. Spooner: And that great numbers who wish to come to the United States might suddenly become Christians; and when asked, ‘How did you happen to become a Christian?’ they could truthfully say, ‘Senator Quay persuaded me to become a Christian’—not ‘almost,’ but absolutely. How long they would be Christians after they reached this country, how soon they would backslide from the senator’s standpoint of Christianity, and go back to the doctrines of Confucius, would be purely a mental operation7which the senator from Pennsylvania would not be able, nor would the government inspectors, to detect. “The adoption of this amendment would simply open the door to every Chinaman who professed Christianity, and that is easily professed. Many men profess it and do not possess it even in our own country; and I think it might very easily happen that many Chinamen would profess it for the purpose of getting into the United States as laborers, who do not possess it in China, or would not possess it in this country. It would open the gateway wider, I believe, to the admission of Chinese laborers disguised as Christians than any other scheme which could possibly be devised.” The reader can apply the argument and the admissions here made, to the case of congressional legislation in favor of “orthodox” Christianity in this country. Already, by act of Congress, Sunday is recognized as the Christian sabbath, and any religion which disputed this would not be orthodox. Every act of legislation in the field of religion helps to define a national “orthodox” creed. And when such legislation shall have made it pecuniarily advantageous to belong to the church, as Senator Quay would make it advantageous to the Chinese to profess Christianity; when, to quote from Senator Quay, the people who conform to the orthodox religion, and only such, are recognized “as fit to take part in this government,”—then hypocrites will flock into the orthodox church; and while some will be deluded into thinking that great conversions have been wrought by legislative act, and that the millennium has been reached, others, like this senator, will be willing to “admit . . . hypocrites if they fulfill the requirements of the ecclesiastical authorities.” Such a condition of things is yet to be realized in the nominally Christian church. And then will be fulfilled the prophecy of inspiration: “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. . . . Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev. 18: 2–4.