THE NEW YORK CONFERENCE OF RELIGION.
By C. H. Keslake
The New York Conference of Religion, an organization formed in 1899, held their first meeting in this city, Nov. 20, 22, 1900. To say that it was a notable gathering, and its influence destined to be far-reaching, and that it will be a factor in the formation of, and the giving of life to, the Image of the Beast, is but to express it in its mildest form. No less than fifteen different denominations were represented in this conference, and the papers were prepared by men of the highest standing in the denominations to which they respectively belong, and most of them have a national or world-wide reputation. The object of the conference was not to discuss or compare the different points of religious faith, but to find a basis upon which all could unite, without the sacrifice of individual beliefs of doctrine, in “furthering the kingdom of God upon the earth.” Indeed, the points of faith which are regarded as fundamental by each denomination were to be a matter of no concern in the movement. On this point, the Rev. R. Heber Newton, in his paper, said, “The things that divide them must be things of less importance.” In short, how to bring in an ideal state, or government, in which religion should have the controlling power, was the object sought. Never before, perhaps, was any conference held in which so little bigotry and intolerance were manifested as in this toward those who dissented from them. In fact, it would be only just to state that there was an utter absence of any such spirit. And herein lies the danger. The ultimate aim of the conference is precisely the same as that of many others; the same evils are wrapped up in this movement that are to be seen in other religious organizations, such as the National Reform organization; but the exterior aspect is so fair, and its profession so mild, that it is well calculated to disarm the suspicious. Many of the statements made in the papers read reveal the true inwardness of the whole movement. One speaker, referring to certain teachers in some of our colleges in the land, said: “In the strong regard given by those teachers to civic obligations and duties, they barred the extreme individualism of the Jeffersonian period by declaring, ‘Without rights, without duties; and no duties without rights.’ And yet this doctrine of the nineteenth century is that the permanence of civil duties is the end for which these common rights exist, and is entitled to be called progress only so far as it succeeds in connecting the existence of freedmen with the truth proclaimed by philosophy and ethics that the freeman is here ONLY THAT HE MAY SERVE THE COMMONWEALTH. In view of these signs, I dare declare that there has been more ethical progress during the nineteenth century than during all the centuries preceding.” In this statement it will be seen that the doctrine of individual rights is denied; they are to be swallowed up in the interests of the state. When this phase of ethics is reached, there will be absolutely no appeal for those who will dare to stand upon the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Religious liberty will then have been completely swept away. One of the significant features of the conference is the fact that the chairman of the General Committee is a Congregationalist, and its secretary is a Baptist. I allude to the fact here because of the following utterance by the secretary, Rev. Dr. Leighton Williams, of New York City, which will show how Protestantism is steadily reaching across the abyss to clasp hands with Romanism. He said: “Under a union of church and state we could have full dogmatic instruction by the church, which is also the state. But when we have arrived at the idea of separation of church and state, I think it necessary that there should be no dogmatic religious teaching779in the public schools. But we find there is growing up an unmoral spirit, so to speak. How can we get back? Church and state may be separated as institutions, but there must be concert in action. Men are working under the false idea that politics belongs to the secular sphere, and worship to the religious sphere. What shall we do? Take, for instance, the leading Roman Catholic clergymen. We should like to have this conference distinctly represented by Roman Catholics as well as any other class. We know some of these men are very patriotic and strong men in every sense. What shall we do about it? Can we bring into the school anything that is dogmatic, even if we bring it in at a separate afternoon hour? We will not break up our magnificent school system in this country. Our conference seems to show two lines in this political question. One is that we might carry out this idea of common worship a little further, and get some things that the Roman Catholic clergy, Jewish clergy, and Protestant clergy can thoroughly support. We might get the mystical and spiritual element there somewhat in that way. We have also tried to point out in this conference that there is a social religion, and yet it is not being taught in our public schools. This no right-thinking man would dissent from.” That which Dr. Williams had in mind in his reference to the common-worship idea is a book of common worship which has been prepared by this conference, and which, it is hoped, will form a true basis for worship in the public schools. One can get an idea of the character of this work when it is pointed out that in deference to the Jew, all reference to Jesus as being the Christ is omitted; and so also of his divinity, in deference to the Unitarian. It is not to be understood, by any means, that there was complete unanimity of thought expressed in the papers read. This was notably so in the case of Professor Batten, of New York, an Episcopalian clergyman, who had been called upon to supply a paper on “Political Ideals of the Bible,” in the place of Professor Nash, of Harvard University (N. T.). This gentleman threw a bomb into the camp by taking the ground that there are absolutely no political ideals to be found in the New Testament. He seemed to realize that this utterance was contrary to what would be expected of him; for he remarked, with a half turn of the head toward the presiding officer, “This may be a disappointment to some, but I can not help that; it is the fact.” He then went on to give both positive and negative reasons for his position, which were so clear that he carried conviction to the entire audience. The Rev. Dr. Whiton, the chairman of the General Committee, sought to soften down these hard, cold facts by alleging, as a reason for the silence of the New Testament in this regard, that they are to be found in the Old Testament. He said: “I think that there were very clear conceptions of political responsibility for the realization of political ideals among the prophets of history; and, secondly, that Jesus in his ministry quietly set his seal upon all prophets. He said he came not to destroy, but to fulfill, the law and the prophets. We have no Christian ideals at all. The Christian ideals in that respect are to be found in the Old Testament, not in the New. It is to Israel that we must go for political ideals, and those are just as truly the Christian Scriptures as the New Testament is.” The secretary of the conference, Dr. Williams, following the discussion on “Political Ideals in the Bible,” said: “The Correct Ideal: this ideal is not political in the sense that it should be realized through the state, but comes by voluntary acceptance brought about by spiritual things. There is thus in the kingdom of God the union of spiritual and social ideals. These are the propositions toward which some of us are tending. I think that we ought to have the union of spiritual and social ideals, that no social order is ideal but that which is the natural outcome of spiritual aspirations.” This utterance is precisely similar to the avowed object of the convention as set forth in the program of the meeting. Thus it reads: “Its bond of union is not in a common formula, but in the one spirit which is variously expressed in the different religious forms. Its purpose is to promote the largest practicable junction of religious forces for the furtherance of these fundamental religious, moral, and social interests which are vital to the stability of the commonwealth.” What is this but an open bid for the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth? According to the preceding, the correct ideal can not be realized through the state; that is, through the state alone. The social ideal is inseparable from the spiritual, and the two combined are to be found in the kingdom of God. As therefore the state alone can not, through legislation, correct social wrongs, the forces of religion must be used to lead out in the work—the spiritual ideal must be the governing factor. With each—the church and the state—in its proper sphere, however, these propositions are perfectly correct. The social ideal can not be attained independently of the spiritual ideal. But the operations by which these are to be realized are wholly dissimilar. One is within the purview of the state; the other is wholly within that of the church alone. But this is not what the Conference of Religion aspires to. As held by this conference, the correct ideal is the blending of the spiritual and social, the political ideal of the Old Testament. But that is strictly the theocratical principle, and all denials to the contrary notwithstanding, involves the rejection of God, in the union of church and state. And against this, not only the teachings of Christ, but of the whole Old Testament, are diametrically opposed. Without the rejection of God there can be no union of church and state. This was done in the days of Saul, and resulted in the total choosing of Cæsar instead of God, and the utter ruin of the whole nation. It was done again in the early centuries of the Christian era, and the result was the utter ruin of the Roman Empire, and the horrible reign of the papacy in the place of God. The “junction” of the two in these times as entertained by the Conference of Religion must result in the rejection of God by Protestantism and this nation, the making of the image of the papacy, and the utter ruin of this nation, and of the world. This is what is before us; and who is ready?