Whose “Christian Principles”?️
By Editor
We refer again to the World's Christian Citizenship Conference. As stated in our last issue by one of its chief promoters, it has for its purpose the adoption of a “Declaration of Principles—the Christian principles of civil government,” and these principles are to be recommended to the people of all countries for adoption. Suppose these plans are all carried out—the “Christian principles” adopted, recommended, and the recommendation adopted in abstract by the governments of earth. In absolute monarchies, or autocracies, if there were such, the Christian principles in concrete would be those of the king. When he died and his successor came to the throne these “Christian principles” might undergo a violent change. The first king might be a Trinitarian, the second a Unitarian. What a change would have to be made in religious educational text-books! And how would the court preachers adjust themselves to the change? But suppose a representative government like the United States should adopt these “Christian principles of civil government” in the abstract. Suppose that they should do as the National Reform Association, that is leading out in this great conference, advises,—embody them in the fundamental law of the state. The next thing would be to crystallize them into civil statutes, to make them practical in the life of the nation and of the people. One of the first questions which would arise would be, What is Christianity, and what are “Christian principles of civil government”? The legislators would immediately face a tremendous dilemma; for on one side would stand the Protestant Federation of Churches. Whether all Protestants were willing or not, the Federation would assume, in all probability, to speak for Protestantism, and such a large body would doubtless be accepted as authority on that side of the question by the religious, semi-religious, unreligious, and irreligious lawmakers. Yet there would be a large number of true, devoted Protestants in different denominations, and sometimes whole denominations, that would utterly repudiate the authority of such a body, and they would be compelled to do this on the Protestant principle of the Bible and the Bible alone. How would these be regarded? But there would face our legislators also another large body that have very decided views regarding Christianity and what are “Christian principles of civil government;” namely, the Roman Catholic Church. That body believes that the head of the church is not the Protestant Federation, or any kind of federation whatsoever, but the pope. His word to them is absolute law, and his interpretation is standard. That body can not, consistent with its belief, compromise in any way by uniting with Protestantism. Our legislators could not in any way patch up the matter between the two religious bodies by asking mutual concession. The only compromising element, as far as we could see, and as far as history has demonstrated, would be the Protestant body itself, which would compromise and yield to Roman Catholic principles in order to develop the designs of the Christian Citizenship Conference. That would mean, therefore, as far as these principles were formulated into statute law, Roman Catholic government. One step would lead to another; every religious principle introduced into operative government would be an entering wedge for others to follow, until we should have full-fledged church-and-state government of which the pope would be the head. Logically, such a government would emphasize its highest laws and would guard them by the strongest penalties. Logically, those laws would be that which pertains to religion, for man's good spiritually and morally. Logically, the free-born soul in Christ, who had been taught to serve God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and whose conscientious interpretation of the Word of God leads him outside of these “Christian principles of civil government,” would be considered the worst criminal, tho no whiter soul might live in the republic. Upon him would be visited the highest penalties. All these things would logically follow; and the more conscientious the supporters of such a perverted system would be, the more earnestly would they prosecute to prison and to death those who were conscientiously and really opposed to such a government. Thus would they demonstrate, as expressed by the United States Senate Report adopted in 1829,— “that among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for violation of what GOVERNMENT DENOMINATED THE LAW OF GOD.” Therefore as the report declares,— “To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the CONSTITUTION has wisely WITHHELD FROM OUR GOVERNMENT the power of DEFINING THE DIVINE law. It is a RIGHT RESERVED TO EACH CITIZEN, and while he respects the rights of others, HE CAN NOT BE HELD AMENABLE TO ANY HUMAN TRIBUNAL FOR HIS CONCLUSIONS.” These are noble words, and they ought to burn deep into the soul of every one who loves liberty. The American people ought to rise in their might, and denounce and repudiate every effort to change the principles of the freest and noblest government on the face of the earth. We will consider in later numbers some of the other things purposed; and before we are through with this we will show that our Constitution as it stands is nearer the divine conception of what a civil government ought to be than that of any government that has ever existed. The great conference to be held in Philadelphia in November next, is indeed an important one. It means much for American liberty. Are Americans awake to its meaning?