THE NATIONAL CHRISTIANITY QUESTION.
By W. N. Glenn
BUT the editor of Sunday Reform Leaflets gives us a further modern construction of what the constitutional fathers intended:— It is said Congress is prohibited from establishing religion in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But what was understood by an "establishment of religion," when that amendment was adopted, was a State church, and nothing else was thought of at that time. That phrase was in common use, and applied universally to the State church, which had recently been disestablished in Virginia. Congress was thus prohibited from taxing the people for the support of the old "Church of England in America," or for the support of any other branch of the Christian church. But it was not understood as prohibiting the support of Christianity. This expression is well refuted in the quotations from Mr. Madison which immediately precede it, but we will add a little more from the abundance that is available. In the same memorial from which we have already quoted, Mr. Madison said: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects." Again, in a letter to Mr. Edward Livingston, speaking of religious liberty, Mr. Madison wrote as follows: "Notwithstanding the general progress made within the last two centuries in favor of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error,—that without some sort of alliance or coalition between government and religion, neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. . . . Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." And in a letter from Mr. Madison to Edward Everett there occurs this expression: "Religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; a connection between them is injurious to both." Another extract from the Sunday Leaflets is as follows:— Congress is continually acknowledging God, and at every session appropriating money out of the public treasury for the more firm establishment and propagation of the Christian religion. Each house of Congress has its chaplain—a minister of some Christian Church. He prays at each day’s session, visits sick members as a pastor, and buries, with Christian burial, any that may die during the session, performing the functions of a pastor, each house being, in a certain sense, a Christian Church. It was well to prefix the qualification, "in a certain sense," but we may well ask, In what certain sense? Of all the pastoral burlesques, the pastorate of the Houses of Congress takes the lead. We have heard of all sorts of criminality, immorality, and debauchery on the part of members of Congress, but we never yet heard of any disciplinary measures by the pastor. Some of the worst congressional scandals have been in connection with the "Christian burial" of members. If we are to consider congressional chaplains as pastors, is it not high time their denominations, or the country at large, were calling them to account for the demoralized condition of their charges? It would be interesting to know how many members of Congress recognize the pastoral relation of their chaplain. By the way, if the chaplains are pastors of the Houses of Congress, is it not the duty of the members to pay the salaries of their pastors? That is the way the common people have to do. Perhaps the chaplains are missionary pastors "in a certain sense," but we have evidence that this chaplain business is a deviation from the "plainly intended" principles of "our fathers." In the letter to Edward Livingston, before referred to, Mr. Madison said: "I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil jurisdiction in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the national treasury." The editor of Leaflets continues the chaplain question a little further, in the following enthusiastic outburst:— The "boys in blue" that leave the touch of mother and the sweet influence of home and church are provided with Christianity at government expense. With every regiment of our soldiers, and with every squadron that sails the deep and carries the stars and stripes, there goes a minister of the Christian religion, who draws his salary out of the national treasury. The writer has not had any experience in the navy, but he knows that if that paragraph were read to "the boys" in the army garrisons, it would create no little merriment. The Christianity that is provided "at government expense" is decidedly a creature of the imagination so far as the army is concerned, and it would be hard to conceive of such a Christianity in any other circle. The writer spent about two years at the Presidio of San Francisco, during which time the command numbered from 500 to 1,000 persons. He was a personal friend of the post chaplain, and knows that said chaplain never pretended to visit the quarters of the enlisted men. He would visit the post hospital if sent for, or if some acquaintance were confined there. He was supposed to preach every Sunday, and fulfilled that duty about half the time. When he did preach, although quite a talented man and good speaker, his audiences did not average over a score, and they were mostly women and children. It was a rare thing to see half a dozen soldiers present, and there were seldom more than two or three officers there. Those who had had much experience said it was so everywhere—the chaplaincy was the veriest sinecure. But that was in war times, when the brethren of this "Christian nation" were doing their best to annihilate one another, and "Christian" ministers were wielding carnal weapons on both sides of the bloody contest. Perhaps the Christianity "provided at government expense" then was of a lower grade than that which is supplied at the present time. There is one difference, but whether it be an improvement or not the reader may judge: In those days citizens were appointed as sutlers, with the privilege of selling beer and other goods in garrison or on the march. Now the government keeps a "canteen" at each post, and this "Christian nation" conducts a beer business on its own account; and we have the humiliating spectacle of army officers ("at government expense") dealing out the intoxicating beverage to the "boys in blue." A few chaplains did speak out against the "canteen" disgrace, but erelong there came general orders from headquarters of the army that if they did not cease to criticise the government, they would be court-martialed. We have not heard of any of them resigning their positions, or being court-martialed, and the presumption is they hold their peace with reference to the greatest evil with which they are brought in contact. Query: What can be said of the Christian influence of a minister who dare not protest against a flagrant evil indulged by his particular flock, through fear of losing his position? When the editor of Leaflets says of the chaplain that he "draws his salary out of our national treasury," he has told the whole story. Whoever can look upon the workings of this government, in any of its departments—all of which are manipulated in the selfish interests of parties, monopolies, cliques, and scheming individuals—whoever, we say, can seriously ponder these things and call it Christian work, must have very crude ideas of Christianity. Christian duty is thus set forth by the Lord himself: "I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." On this principle, how will our "Christian nation" account for its army and navy? How will it account for the annihilated Indians? How about the vast territory wrenched from her next-door neighbor, Mexico? Alas! there can be no just claim of Christianity where the Spirit of Christ does not dictate the action. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. 8:9. How, then, can a nation be Christian without that Spirit? It is not enough that it be so labeled by a human court, no matter how high its dignity may be. Human Supreme Court decisions will not count in the final judgment.