Forces in Active Antagonism to the Fundamental Principles of the American Government
By C. M. S.
SOME of the advocates of the principles for which the National Reform Association stands see the logical result of the adoption of those principles, and frankly admit them. Prof. C. A. Blanchard said:— Congress must establish a standard of religion, or admit anything called religion. That means an established religion. Said Rev. M. A. Gault:— Our remedy for all these malefic influences is to have the government simply set up the moral law, and recognize God's authority behind it, and lay its hand on any religion that does not conform to it. That is all that was done under the union of church and state in colonial days; that was all that was done in England and Europe when the Pilgrim fathers sailed for America and made exiles of themselves to escape persecution. That was all that was done in Spain in the palmiest days of the Inquisition; that is all paganism was doing when Nero and his fellow butchers were making torches of the Christians, or feeding them to the lions in the arena. And it is that same principle of operation that the National Reform Association9proposes shall be substituted in our government for the principles upon which it was established, and upon which it has been operating thus far. Again the Rev. M. A. Gault declares:— We propose to incorporate in our national Constitution the moral and religious command, “In it [the Sabbath] thou shalt do no work,” except the works of necessity, and by external force of sheriffs we propose to arrest and punish all violators of this law. Says the Christian Nation:— Let those who will, remember the Sabbath to keep it holy, from motives of love and obedience; the remnant must be made to do so through fear of law. We have no option. Dr. David McAlister said:— Those who oppose this work now will discover, when the religious amendment is made to the Constitution, that if they do not see fit to fall in with the majority, they must abide the consequences or seek some more congenial clime. That is what we have always predicted will happen when they secure the legislation they desire. Professing to govern in the name of, and as the representatives of, Jesus Christ, they will dishonor him, and oppress and persecute and exile those who would worship him in spirit and in truth. The Rev. S. V. Leech said:— Give us good Sunday laws, well enforced by men in local authority, and our churches will be full of worshipers, and our young men and women will be attracted to the divine service. A mighty combination of the churches of the United States could win from Congress, the State legislatures, and municipal councils all legislation essential to this splendid result. Notice the form of attraction which it is proposed to use,—the external force of sheriffs,—exactly what was done in colonial days, when every absentee from church service must give satisfactory reason for his absence or suffer in person or goods. Notice also that it is “a mighty combination of the churches of the United States” that is to force from Congress the laws that are needed to increase church attendance. But that “combination” is exactly what Congress, through the famous Sunday Mail Reports, wisely warned the nation against. Notice another thing. Jesus Christ said, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” This proposed “combination” says that “by external force of sheriffs” the people will be, not drawn, but forced into the churches. Such a policy, we hold, is diametrically opposed to every principle of the gospel; and its insinuation that the power of love needs the “external force of sheriffs” to make it effective in accomplishing God’s purpose, is an insult to Heaven. To carry still further its policy of arrogant disrespect to Heaven, that movement proposes by external force of human law and the boycott to wipe out completely the Sabbath of Jehovah, and to substitute for it the false sabbath which originated in the Catholic Church. Says the Rev. Dr. Bascom Robbins:— In the Christian decalogue the first day was made the sabbath by divine appointment. But there is a class of people who will not keep the Christian sabbath unless they are forced to do so; but that can easily be done. If we would say we will not sell anything to them, we will not buy anything from them, we will not work for them, nor hire them to work for us, the thing could be wiped out, and all the world would keep the Christian sabbath. And thus is the boycott, that last heartless weapon of an illegal conspiracy, advocated by a doctor of divinity as a means for advancing what he considers the cause of Christ. Certain it is that they who utilize such a weapon in the name of Christ will receive from him in the day of final awards the terrible sentence: “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” It takes more than one society to make a combination, and the prophetic Word has given us warrant for believing that there will be more than one society engaged in the work of bringing the world into subjection to one antichristian power. Says the prophet: “Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.” Isa. 8:12. But this is the age of confederacy. And it is a most striking and significant fact that every confederacy that is working in our country to-day is working in antagonism to the fundamental principles of our government. We saw that the National Reform Association, by the very name itself as well as by its declaration of principles, is working against the principles incorporated in our Declaration of Independence and in our national Constitution, with the other organizations to which we shall briefly refer. In 1864 there was one obscure organization advocating those un-American principles. In 1888 there were three more,—the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Third Party Prohibition party, and the American Sabbath Union,—and each of these three was capable of wielding a greater influence than was the parent organization. In the year 1884 the National Reform Association made a bid for an ally stronger in numbers and political influence than all four of these organizations. Said the Christian Statesman of Dec. 11, 1884:— Whenever they [the Roman Catholics] are willing to cooperate in resisting the progress of political atheism, we will gladly join hands with them. What was meant by “political atheism” was simply the separation of church and state and the nation’s guaranty to the individual of the right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience. That being common ground to both the National Reform Association and the Catholic Church, the latter took the proposition of cooperation under favorable consideration, and in the year 1889, at the Catholic Lay Congress held in Baltimore on November 12, issued the following pronunciamento:— There are many Christian issues upon which Catholics could come together with non-Catholics and shape civil legislation for the public weal. In spite of rebuff and injustice, and overlooking zealotry, we should seek an alliance with non-Catholics for proper Sunday observance. Without going over to the Judaic sabbath, we can bring the masses over to the moderation of the Christian Sunday. The editor of the Catholic Universe urged the consummation of such a confederacy, in these words:— What we should seek is an en rapport with the Protestant Christians who desire to keep Sunday holy.—Paper read at the above-named congress. The action of the Catholic Lay Congress in issuing such a pronunciamento was taken “after correspondence and conference with the American Sabbath Union.” Both these organizations have declared it their purpose to enforce the Sunday institution. But we find another policy upon which they are in agreement. Said the Rev. David Gregg, a vice-president of the National Reform Association, in an article in the Christian Statesman of June 5, 1884:— The civil power has the right to command the consciences of men. If the civil power has the right thus to do, then all the persecutions of the dark ages were right; all that Rome ever did in commanding the consciences of men and “correcting heretics” by flame, rack, dungeon, and thumbscrew was right; all the persecutions of early colonial days were right; and all that has been done in this country to free the soul from the oppression of spiritual tyranny is wrong. But we will see how that declaration of Dr. Gregg’s harmonizes with the Catholic purpose. Says that Roman Catholic theologian Peter Dens (Vol. II, No. 51, page 80):— Baptized infidels, such as heretics and apostates usually are, also baptized schismatics, may be compelled, even by corporal punishment, to return to the Catholic faith and the unity of the church. The reason is because these by baptism have become subject to the church; and therefore the church has jurisdiction over them, and the power of compelling them through appointed means to obedience, and to fulfil the obligations contracted in baptism,10It may be news to many Protestants to learn that if they have taken part in the ordinance of baptism, they are considered subjects of the Roman pontiff; but such is the case. If you have ever been baptized,—no matter by whom,—Rome looks upon you as her subject, and claims the right to compel you by corporal punishment to enter her fold. Says Dr. O. A. Brownson, a Roman Catholic editor and author:— The people need governing and must be governed. . . . They must have a master. . . . The first lesson to the child is, obey; the first and last lesson to the people, individually and collectively, is, obey; and there is no obedience where there is no authority to enjoin it. . . . The Roman Catholic religion, then, is necessary to sustain popular liberty, because popular liberty can be sustained only by a religion free from popular control, above the people, speaking from above, and able to command them; and such a religion is the Roman Catholic. . . . In this sense we wish this country to come under the Pope of Rome. . . . We assert his supremacy, and tell our countrymen that we would have them submit to him. They may flare up at this as much as they please. . . . They will not move us, nor relieve themselves from the obligation Almighty God has placed them under of obeying the authority of the Catholic Church, Pope and all.—Brownson's 'Essays,' pages 380-383. The two organizations are thus shown to be in harmony so far as the principle of forcing the conscience of individuals in religious things is concerned. We have shown that the National Reform Association opposes the fundamental principles of our government, and has set itself to the task of so revising the national Constitution that it shall speak a different language from what it speaks to-day, shall repudiate what it has hitherto guaranteed, and authorize the interference of the state in the religious concerns of the people. We have seen also that this organization has invited the Catholic Church to join her in her purpose. How does the Roman Catholic Church stand with reference to the fundamental principles of our government and the Constitution that has guaranteed our liberties? Said Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical published in 1885:— All Catholics should do all in their power to cause the constitutions of states, and legislation, to be modeled on the principles of the true church. The word 'states' in this quotation is used in the sense of nations. The Constitution of the United States was not founded on Roman Catholic principles. It therefore becomes the bounden duty of every Catholic in this country to see to it that our Constitution is so altered as to be acceptable to the Pope. The Catholic World (Vol. XIII, page 736) tells us how Catholics regard our national Constitution:— As it [the United States Constitution] is interpreted by the liberal and sectarian journals . . . or is interpreted by the Protestant principle, so widely diffused among us, . . . we do not accept it, or hold it to be any government at all, or as capable of performing any of the proper functions of government. . . . If the American republic is to be sustained and preserved at all, it must be by the rejection of the principle of the Reformation and the acceptance of the Catholic principle by the American people. These are plain words, expressing a bold and unchanging purpose toward our country. Rome has declared that governments, to be legitimate, must be based upon the law of God. Ours is not so based, therefore, in Rome's eyes, is illegitimate. She has said that governments ruled by the people, or by kings not submissive to her, are merely governments de facto. Says Balmes, in his work 'Protestantism and Catholicity Compared:'— It is allowable to resist illegitimate power by force. The Catholic religion does not enjoin obedience to governments existing merely de facto.—Chap. 56, page 336. That releases American Catholics from moral responsibility for any attitude of antagonism they may assume toward the government of the United States. It is absolution in advance for any act they might commit against the government. Such is the ally which the Sunday-law advocates have taken into their camp to assist in the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. C. M. S.
(To be concluded)