A RESULT OF THE WAR WITH SPAIN.
By Editor
STATESMEN of all political creeds sometimes state in a few words facts and principles which express the shortness of human vision, and at the same time (altho unwittingly) confirm the inerrancy of the "more sure word of prophecy." A case in point is the opening sentence of a speech by Hon. Horace Chilton, of Texas, in the United States Senate:— "The course of events since the beginning of our war with Spain shows how impossible it is to see ahead whenever an armed conflict between modern nations is set in motion. Some of the results of the war can be anticipated, but others are beyond the vision of the most far-reaching statesmanship." This short-sightedness as to the possible results of war never was more emphatically illustrated than in the war between the United States and Spain. It is safe to say that not one individual in the world had even dreamed, at the outset of the war, that present conditions and present political issues would grow out of a war which the people urged and indorsed on the sole pretext of aiding the downtrodden Cubans. But when war is once fairly begun, and full vent has been given to the war spirit, the theretofore unseen complications and strategical necessities (real and imaginary) begin to arise thick and fast. The popular fallacy that patriotism forbids a government to do anything that looks like backing out—no matter what inconsistency of principle may lie in going forward—is the foundation of pretext upon pretext for continuing war. There is nothing in this world that will throw otherwise cool, sensible people into a blind frenzy of enthusiasm, like the glamour of military display. It kindles and inflames an impulse that refuses to recognize bounds short of absolute defeat or a dearth of plausible pretext. Hon. Whitelaw Reid, in his recent address at the University of California, expressed the popular idea briefly and tersely, when he said that the only point in the war at which the government could have stopped with honor to itself was before it began. And President McKinley claimed, and, we believe, still claims, that if the people had been patient he could have procured the desired concessions from Spain by diplomacy. But the war "broke out," and, altho Spain was defeated more than a year ago, and is now on our list of national friends, the war goes on. That war was dovetailed into another, with a people with whom the United States were in sympathy at the beginning of the war with Spain, and who were enemies of their enemies. Without even a change in the original formal declaration of war, the war is continued in a territory and with a people where and with whom war was not even dreamed of at the outset. The prophet who would have dared to predict in the beginning of the war with Spain in behalf of Cuba, that it would end in a war in the Philippines with the Filipinos, would have been branded as an arrant fanatic, and the insinuation would have been denounced as a slander upon the people of this "Christian nation." But still another controversy, a logical sequence of war with the Filipinos, has been attached to the tail of the war kite. We say logical sequence, because war against Filipino independence is primarily Rome's war. While it has ceased to be a common cause between Rome and Spain, Rome has simply mounted a fresh horse, because the old one broke down. It is now Rome and the United States against Filipino independence. This, in part, explains why Rome is sometimes favorable to a nominally republican government. It can sometimes use such a government to its advantage. But a real republic, such as this government was while its two lamb-like horns (Revelation 13) stood for more than mere profession, never could have been drawn into such a complication. This new controversy that has arisen out of the war, as must necessarily be the case when Rome comes in as a factor, is religious in character. Shall Rome be permitted to retain all the vast landed estates that it is alleged have been acquired from the people through coercion and extortion? And shall the people be compelled to retain and support a dominating clergy that is repugnant to them? The United States, through the vicissitudes of war, has been drawn into a partnership in this controversy. If the former question is settled favorably to Rome, the latter will by force of circumstances be settled that way too—sooner or later. Leading up to the questions above cited, is the primary one of damage to church property through the war waged by the United States; and the arbiters are three—two being Roman prelates, and one an officer of the United States army. Thus the United States, in the outset of this religious controversy in the Philippines, allows Rome to hold the balance of power. Consequently the key to the whole situation is placed in the hands of Rome by the United States. But what has all this to do with prophecy?—It has much to do with it. There is to be set up by this country an image to Rome, that is, a Church-and-State government. That can only be done by a departure from the republican principles upon which the government was founded, and from the Protestant principles which actuated the masses of those who professed the Christian religion. While these two ideas predominated, there could not be any dominant impulse to make an image to Rome. But there came a gradual departure from republican principles, when, during and immediately after the Civil War, there came up a spirit of militarism and centralization. From that time on to the present there has been a growing spirit of imperialism in the government, insomuch that expressions, by both politicians and professed ministers of the Gospel, derogatory of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are by no means uncommon. And a significant coincidence is the fact that just at the time this transformation began to work in the government, there arose the National Reform Association, proposing religious amendments to the Constitution, and advocating more general enforcement of Sunday laws, and the enactment of other forms of religious legislation. As the spirit of imperialism grew in the government, the spirit of religious intolerance waxed stronger in the church. National Reformism—which is the spirit of Rome under Protestant guise—has gained many allies in organized societies and in the popular churches. During the past ten years it has succeeded in imprisoning its opponents in as many different States of the Union, and in 1893 it succeeded in cajoling Congress into officially interpreting the seventh day of the fourth commandment to mean the first day of the week. And since the commencement of the war with Spain this National Reform-Roman spirit has increased to an unprecedented degree, and its influence is becoming stronger and stronger in many of the more influential political centers. Now mark: The growth of the spirit of religious intolerance and clamor for religious legislation is in proportion to the growth of imperialism in the government. And note this: It is not possible for religious legislation to obtain where true republicanism has a firm seat in the government. Religious legislation is of Rome, and Rome is essentially imperial. The Roman religion—which is religious coercion, even if such coercion be advocated by professed Protestants—can only predominate where the government is imperial in principle, no matter if it be republican in form. Imperial government and Roman (or enforced) religion go together, because they mingle, and the government enforces the religion. True republican government and true Protestantism harmonize and live happily in the same territory because they instinctively let each other alone. Each moves in its own legitimate sphere, attending to its own specific business. And, in this sinful world, it is only under such a régime that liberty of conscience can have the assurance of undisturbed action. The effect, then, of the war with Spain upon the prophecy to which we have referred, comes through the fact that all the territory which has come under the control of the United States by virtue of the war, is dominated by the Roman religion. And Rome has had sufficient influence with the government to impress the idea that Roman prelates know better than any other class how to manage the natives in all these islands. This theory is based upon the fact that the priests have dominated the people so long that no other system can be successful. The government has adopted this idea to a sufficient extent to involve the principle of giving that church the prestige of recognition in the management of civil affairs. Thus the door which already stood ajar in this country to the entrance of united Church and State has, by the war, been thrown open to a far greater extent than ever before; and this wider opening has been in the interest of that ecclesiastical power which, by long experience, knows how to make the most of it. This is one of the unforeseen effects of the war with Spain—unforeseen even by Rome herself, for at the outset the papal blessing was put upon the Spanish army and cause, deeming that Rome's interest lay in the success of Spain. But the influence which that power has already attained in the affairs of the United States in the islands affected by the change, shows her shrewdness and alertness in adjusting herself to new conditions. We have said this is one of the unforeseen effects of the war; we might add that is the most far-reaching effect, the most ominous result, fraught with the most imminent danger to what is left of the true principles of republicanism in the home government, and of religious liberty for the people. More has been accomplished in the way of fully developing what the prophecy calls the "image of the beast" (Revelation, chapters 13 and 14), and in giving life to it, since the commencement of the war with Spain than in all the years before. And this sad condition has been brought about through a war inaugurated solely on the plea of humanity. G.