"NATIONAL REFORM" EXEMPLIFIED
"NATIONAL REFORM" EXEMPLIFIED
IT is a well-known fact that error, no matter how well disguised or how conscientiously maintained, will show itself at times and in ways that leave no doubt of its character, and that ought to convince even the simplest mind. Its most ardent advocates will sometimes make admissions or present illustrations that, it would seem, must convince even themselves of the fallacy of their positions. A case in point is the admissions of the National Reform organ, brought out in a recent presentation of the South African Boer question. The editor admits that the Boers are National Reformers, the admission being in these words:— "The fact that they entered years ago into a public covenant with God to take His Word as their ultimate law in civil affairs has intensified the sympathy of many of the friends of Christian civil government for this remarkable people. It is not surprising that descendants of the old Scottish Covenanters should feel themselves powerfully drawn toward the heroic warriors of the Transvaal, who bear in many respects a striking resemblance to the heroes of the Scottish Covenants, nor that this sympathy should in many cases be still further strengthened, especially for President Kruger, by the uncompromising stand which he is known to have maintained for the exclusive use of the Scripture psalms in the worship of God." The National Reform movement in the United States originated in the Reformed Presbyterian or Covenanter Church, "descendants of the old Scottish Covenanters;" and one of their leading purposes has been to have this government do just as the Boers have done, "enter into a public covenant with God to take His Word as their ultimate law in civil affairs." Now this same National Reform organ from which we have quoted gives in the same article some direct testimony as to the character of the National Reform Boers who have so long been under a "public covenant with God to take His Word as their ultimate law in civil affairs." In the first place, they enslaved the native Africans until compelled by Great Britain to emancipate them for a certain sum of money, about $20,000,000. But we will give what is admitted by publications as aforesaid. It is testified by Dr. David Livingstone, the noted African missionary and explorer:— "One of the difficulties with which the mission had to contend was the vicinity of the Boers of the Cashan Mountains. I have myself seen Boers come to a village, and, according to their custom, demand twenty or thirty women to weed their gardens. These poor creatures, accordingly, proceeded to the scene of unrequited toil, carrying their own food on their heads, their children on their backs, and instruments of labor on their shoulders. 'We make the people labor for us,' said the Boers, 'in consideration of our allowing them to live in the country.' . . . . It is difficult to conceive that men possessing the common attribute of humanity [and these Boers are by no means destitute of the better feelings of our nature] should set out, after caressing their wives and children, and proceed to shoot down men and women whose affections are as warm as ours." In the same connection another quotation is given from Doctor Livingstone, as follows:— "During that time [eight years of his missionary labors] no winter passed without one or two tribes in the East country being plundered of both cattle and children by the Boers. The plan pursued is the following: One or two friendly tribes are forced to accompany a party of mounted Boers, and their expeditions can be got up only in the winter, when horses may be used without danger of being lost by disease. When they reach the tribe to be attacked, the friendly natives are ranged in front, to form, as they say, 'a shield,' the Boers then coolly fire over their heads till the devoted people flee and leave their cattle, wives, and children to the captors. This was done in nine cases during my residence in the interior, and on no occasion was a drop of Boer blood shed." Now this is the people, and this the practical working of their government, who "years ago" made just such a "public covenant with God" as the National Reformers are urging this government to make. And the testimony as to the practical working of the "covenant" is given by the National Reform organ, which speaks of the Boers as having "many noble qualities, especially their devout and prayerful spirit and their reverence for the Word of God." And this same organ concedes, after a very elaborate discussion of the subject, that Great Britain has the right side in the present dispute. Yes, we will admit that the National Reformers of America, with such a "covenant with God" in the Constitution, would not do the identical things that are charged up to the National Reformers of South Africa. Perhaps they would not do the identical things that are charged up to the "old Scottish Covenanters" when they had political power; but they do claim the right, when they shall have gained the power, to tolerate or not to tolerate in the land any other classes of people than themselves. People who make such claims will be very apt to exercise the principle when the power comes their way. According to the testimony we have adduced from a National Reform source, the Boers exacted pecuniary remuneration for allowing the natives to remain in their own country. So the National Reformers of this country would assume to make conditions on which other people should remain in the United States. Here is language uttered by leading exponents. The Christian Statesman, the organ to which we have alluded in this article, said in its issue of Oct. 2, 1884:— "'Give all men to understand that this is a Christian nation and that, believing that without Christianity we perish, we must maintain by all means our Christian character. Inscribe this character on our Constitution [that is, make the "public covenant with God," to which we have hereinbefore alluded]. Enforce upon all who come among us the laws of Christian morality." Enforcing Christian morality upon people is something that God Himself does not do, much less commission fallible men to attempt it. The very thought is a most despotic conception. But here is another National Reform utterance that makes conditions of toleration even heavier than those with which the Boer National Reformers are accredited. It is from a speech of Dr. Jonathan Edwards, delivered in a National Reform convention held in New York in 1873:— "Tolerate atheism, sir? There is nothing out of hell that I would not tolerate as soon! The atheist may live, as I have said; but, God helping us, the taint of his destructive creed shall not defile any of the civil institutions of all this fair land! Let us repeat, Atheism and Christianity are contradictory terms. They are incompatible systems. They can not dwell together on the same continent." This is National Reformism, but it is not Christianity. Atheism and Christianity did dwell together when Christianity was represented on earth by its very Head. Jesus Christ mingled with sinners of every type, ate and drank with them, tolerated them even among the twelve, and finally died for them. And He commissioned His disciples to "follow Him." The class that met His direct denunciation were the National Reformers of His time—the scribes and Pharisees—those who had made "a public covenant with God," but persistently violated it, both in letter and in spirit, by their intolerant self-righteousness.