Religious Despotism in Russia.
By James White
Not long since an American citizen was imprisoned in Russia for preaching the gospel, and it is probable that only the timely and energetic efforts of the worthy American Minister at St. Petersburg saved him from being sent to Siberia. This circumstance caused much comment in the United States, and Russia was severely criticised for her religious intolerance. It is likely that the readers of the heading of this article will expect that I shall strongly condemn Russia for her religious despotism. But that is far from my purpose. I write to explain her position, and to show that she is not so far behind the spirit of this enlightened age as many suppose. There is a homely saying that one-half the world does not know how the other half lives. The United States has a vast domain, a fast-increasing population, and her resources are immense. Yet if some of her citizens could be suddenly transported from the scenes of a Fourth-of-July celebration and be set down amid the almost countless cities of the Old World, with their ever-busy swarming millions of inhabitants, it would seem as if the glory of their own land had suddenly collapsed, and that there was another side to this busy world. Here, America is not seen, and her greatness is not appreciated. There, she alone is seen, and the greatness of the Old World is quite as little appreciated. But the American people have less idea of the real condition of spiritual things in Europe, than of the temporal. An American traveler was speaking of the sameness of the world and the church on the Continent, when a continental friend replied: “The world is the church here. We are born church members. In our infancy we are baptized according to the ordinance of the church; in later years this action is confirmed. This is emphatically a Christian country.” In Russia the Czar is as truly the head of the church as he is the ruler of the nation. His civil and spiritual rule and authority exactly correspond; one is just as extensive as the other. To this he allows exceptions in favor of certain religions under certain circumstances. In this is manifested his religious tolerance and forbearance. A foreign or dissenting preacher may obtain permission to preach there if he has a congregation to which he can preach. And he may proselyte from other dissenting bodies, but he must not proselyte among the members of the State church. This, it is true, confines his labors to a narrow field; but this is considered a minister’s duty there. Proselyting is scarcely known and never countenanced. And the Government pursues the only course that it consistently can. To ask more than this of the Czar is to ask him to undermine his own authority. The nation is the church. The Czar is the head of both at once—or, rather, both in one. Therefore to become a dissenter—to unite with another church—is to renounce allegiance to the Czar. If there is any difference in the strength of the ties of loyalty, preference is always supposed to be on the side of the spiritual. It is so with Catholicism. To the charge that Catholics in England and America are subjects of a foreign prince, or ruler, a Catholic writer replied: “Nowhere in the world is the Pope a foreign prince to a true Catholic.” Everywhere, in every nation, the first and highest allegiance of the Catholic is to the Pope. He maintains a citizenship in other States, only subordinate to his allegiance to the Pope, and subservient to the interests of his church. This is true of every truly loyal and consistent Catholic. From this it is readily seen that it is impossible to renounce allegiance to the Czar in the church, and yet maintain allegiance to him in the civil government. They are inseparable; to unite with another church is treason against the Czar. And no method of argument can show that it is any less than, or anything else but, treason. This is the true logic of National Religion. On this basis, the course of the Czar is consistent. To permit foreign preachers to enter his empire and turn away his subjects from him as their spiritual head, is to tolerate treason; and every such preacher is an inciter to treason. He is not there a dissenting minister of the gospel; he is a disturber of the peace and a destroyer of the security of the empire. He is a dangerous person. And this reasoning holds good in every place where there is State religion. And a State religion, a coerced religion, depends for its strength and perpetuity on the strength and amount of authority put forth for its maintenance. In Prussia the religion of the empire is Lutheranism. But the Government is liberal, and the result is that to-day the Catholics have virtual control of the nation. They control the courts. It has been lately decided, in a case prosecuted by the Attorney-General, that it is a public outrage to speak contemptuously of the institutions of the Catholic Church. And this while the Catholics continually heap reproach upon the name of Luther and the Reformation, without rebuke.2 And in England the state of things is no better. Under a liberal system, Ritualism, or Catholicism, as it is in fact, increases in the church, undermining it in every quarter, and open infidelity is taught by ministers of the established church. When this triumph of the Papacy in Prussia became a matter of public notoriety, the papers of the State church called upon the Government for a more liberal outlay of money, and more generous and vigorous efforts to build up the church in the realm, without which it must suffer from the aggressions of the Papal power. But a dissenting paper very aptly said that right there was the foundation of the whole difficulty. They have delegated the work of the church to the State, and instead of doing evangelistic work, they have depended on the money and fostering care of the State, until the church has lost its vital power, and the people are left open to the assaults of the Papacy, which knows so well how to make itself popular with those who have been brought up to a belief in a National Religion. It has yet to be seen whether it is possible to retain vitality and a spirit of evangelizing in a church which is allied to the State, and depends on its patronage and support. Such a thing has never yet been known. Certainly the present condition of things in the nations of Europe is not flattering to the hopes of those who expect good to come out of such a coalition. The advocates of National Religion may reply that this is the result of too much leniency; that the only safe and consistent course is to prevent contrary religions from spreading and gathering strength in the land. In this reply we find a vindication of the course of the Czar of Russia. All National Religionists in America, who plead the necessity of suppressing dissenting religions by State authority, take sides with the Czar of Russia. The logic of his actions is the logic of their arguments. And the increasing influence of the National Reform Association—the increasing demand for a legal religion in America—proves what I said in the beginning, that the Czar in suppressing the preaching of a free gospel in Russia, is not as far behind the spirit of the age as many suppose. No dissenter can be a good citizen of Russia; no dissenter will be considered a “bona fide citizen” of the United States, if National Religion ever becomes an established fact. They who plead for it are not blind to the results—they plainly declare that all who will not consent to the established religion will be disfranchised. Another logical result of such a procedure is also shown. It is evident that a dissenter in Russia is held to be a despiser of civil authority. Even so, if National Religion ever obtains in the United States, a neglect to observe the usages of the established religion will not be held an offense against religion; it will be an offense against the State. Punishment for failure to observe the institutions of Christianity, or what they may call such institutions, will not be religious persecution, it will be punishment for disregarding civil authority—for violating the laws of the State. True, the laws of the church, or of religion, and the laws of the State will be identical; the laws of religion will become the laws of the State. But violation of those laws will not be punished as violations of religious laws, but as State laws! “Here is wisdom.” Dissenters will not be church culprits; they will be rebels and traitors. The old story will be repeated; heresy will be the highest crime—but always against the State. And why not? Spiritual laws are the highest; church relations are the most important. Religious laws, on becoming State laws, are doubly important. The violator of such laws is a greater criminal than the violator of a merely civil law, and his punishment should be greater. But it must always be borne in mind that he is punished for their violation only as State laws. Religion is not a factor in the article of punishment. Such was the logic of Romanism. And already this logic is adopted in America by statesmen and religious papers of high and commanding influence. When men are punished for dissenting from religious tenets, which are in contradiction of their own faith, they are not then to be considered religious tenets—they suddenly become “police regulations.” Let the American people calmly regard this picture, in the light of history, of the action of Russia, and of passing events in the United States. National Reformers may still deny that their movement tends to a union of Church and State. Their denial is no better than a studied deception. Let them call it what they will; the fact remains that in its results it is exactly in harmony with the present action of Russia in shutting out a free gospel from her dominions. And what further witness can anyone ask than their indorsement of the Roman Catholic Church as the advocate and exponent of National Religion? Deny as much as they will, dissemble as they may, just such a National Religion as the Catholic Church upheld in the days of her power, and which she still advocates, is just the form of National Religion for which they plead. Are the American people ready to accept their plea? Are they willing to have religion established on such a basis? To every lover of American liberty, of the sacred privileges granted under her benign Constitution, the AMERICAN SENTINEL must be an acceptable messenger of good-will. May it ever prove a faithful sentinel, and may its faithful warnings be heeded by every lover of his country. Religion and Government
By U. S. Grant
LEAVE the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contribution. Keep the church and State forever separate.
— U. S. Grant. A Recognition of Religion.
REV. MR. GREGG, the pastor of the Park Street Church, took the ground in his sermon on Sunday that it was the duty of Christian citizens to insist on a constitutional amendment which should give the Christian religion a recognition in our great national charter. It does not seem to have occurred to the reverend gentleman that the omission a hundred years ago of all reference to religion may have saved the people of this country from an enormous amount of trouble. We do not believe that it would have made the American people any better, that our standard of morality would have been any higher, that religion would have been any more respected, or that any of the troubles from which we have suffered would thereby have been averted; but it is certain that if religious tests had been applied, we should now be confronted with that serious problem that is engaging the attention of European statesmen; that is, how to reconcile official expressions of religious faith with the conflicting opinions of the people. Mr. Gregg's constitutional amendment would conflict with the honestly entertained religious convictions of several millions of his fellow-citizens. How would he treat these? The Constitution is as much theirs as his, or those whom he represents. Their religion cannot be legislated out of existence, and they would have the same dislike to supporting a Constitution framed in accordance with religious ideas in which they did not believe, as Mr. Gregg would have to supporting the Constitution framed in accordance with the creed of Mahomet. Is it not a proof of the good sense of the framers of our Constitution that they avoided this cause for contention, by giving to every man entire religious liberty, and allowing the civil government to remain absolutely neutral?—Boston Herald. A “Godless” School.
By A. T. J.
THE following ringing sentences are from the New York Observer, and although Father McTighe is said to have abandoned his attempt, at least for the present, this is a sound opinion upon the merits of the case:— “Pittsburg presents the climax of Roman Catholic arrogance in destroying or capturing our public schools. Father McTighe, of St. Michael’s Church, has actually succeeded in having himself appointed principal of the Thirty-third Ward public school in that city. This is the very consummation of unprincipled audacity. Having denounced the schools officially everywhere as ‘immoral and godless,’ a priest, sanctioned by his superiors, takes possession and pretends to administer an ‘immoral, godless’ school. Either he intends secretly to make it Romanist, or else he attempts to do precisely what Protestants wish, and therefore stultifies himself and his church as haters of our public schools. It is believed that he intends to keep what he and his church call a ‘godless’ school during the regular school hours, and then retain all those who will stay, for the purpose of giving them religious teaching in other hours. It is said that the nuns are to be employed as teachers. Such an illustration as this of the purpose and spirit of Romanists ought to rouse the nation. They ought to be taught a lesson now which will need no repetition. Our people will not tolerate this trifling with the very first principles of our polity, namely, that the State shall not in any way whatever engage in sectarian education, sectarian benevolence, or sectarian enterprises of any kind whatever. It is a disgrace to the civilization of any neighborhood, when it permits, for the sake of conciliating the enemies of the public schools, these gross violations of both the letter and spirit of our laws.” But if this “be the very consummation of unprincipled audacity,” what shall be thought and said of the National Reform Association, which proposes to give the Catholic Church authority by law to do this same thing, or worse, in all places in the United States where the Catholics are in the majority? If this action of a single priest in Pittsburg ought to rouse the Nation, what ought the action of Herrick Johnson, Joseph Cook, and nearly a hundred other Protestant (?) preachers, under the lead of Secretary T. P. Stevenson, of the National Reform Association, in Saratoga last August, to do? That action was to adopt a motion requesting the National Reform Association to bring to the attention of “Roman Catholic authorities” a scheme of religious exercises, worship, and instruction, in the public schools throughout the Nation, “with a view of securing, if possible, a basis of agreement” between Catholics and Protestants, whereby the Catholic Bible, Catholic worship, and Catholic instruction, shall be established in the public schools, wherever the Catholics may be in the majority, provided the Catholics will help these Protestants to secure a like power for themselves wherever the Protestants may be in the majority. In the Thirty-third Ward in Pittsburg the Catholics are in the majority; Father McTighe became principal, and his nuns teachers in the public school of that ward; had they remained they would have used the Catholic Bible, would have conducted Catholic worship3and would have given Catholic instruction in that school; that is precisely what the Saratoga National Reform meeting decided by vote to secure if possible throughout the Nation; this action of the Saratoga meeting was taken expressly to “satisfy the Roman Catholics” and to “conciliate them to our school system.” By the action of the Pittsburg School Board Father McTighe, a “Roman Catholic authority,” is satisfied and conciliated with the school system in that city; Father McTighe was doing in Pittsburg exactly what the Saratoga meeting decided to get, if possible, the Roman Catholic authorities to agree to do throughout the Nation; therefore, as this case “is a disgrace to the civilization” of the neighborhood of Pittsburg, the action of the National Reform Association is a disgrace to the civilization of the Nation and of the age. The National Reform Association “ought to be taught a lesson now which will need no repetition.” But, alas! “our people” do “tolerate,” and without a word or murmur of protest, “this trifling with the very first principles of our polity,” and “these gross violations of both the letter and spirit” of our American institutions. “How long, O Lord, how long?” A. T. J. Civil Government and Religion
As American citizens, we hold to the American doctrine that human government relates solely to external affairs, and does not reach, and is not intended to control, our spiritual relations. Civil government covers the relations of citizens to each other, and to the State. Divine government concerns our relations, both individually and collectively, to the Supreme Being, and does not come under the control of State enactments. The only office of civil government relating thereto is to “hold its hands off.”—Selected. An Examination of Principles.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
3. WITH the statement that “the revealed will of God is of supreme authority in civil affairs,” we also take direct issue. That the union of Church and State is a pernicious thing, is so generally conceded that National Reformers themselves are careful always to deny that their movement tends toward any such result; nevertheless the statement which we have just quoted contains the whole substance of Church and State union. For the Bible, not a part, simply, but the whole, is the revealed will of God, and is the whole of the revealed will of God; and it must be admitted that the Bible is a religious book. It was given to men for the sole purpose of teaching them the true religion. But religion and the true church are inseparable. There may be a church and not religion, but there cannot be religion and not the church. In a word, the revealed will of God is the true religion, and is the standard of the true church. Therefore, if that will should be recognized as of supreme authority in civil government, that government would be an ecclesiastical government; in other words, it would be a union of Church and State. Men may assume to take the revealed will of God as of supreme authority in civil affairs, and to oblige all men to conform to it, but in reality such a thing is impossible. For to make all men conform to the will of God would be nothing less than to make them all perfect, not only in outward actions, but in thought. The will of God, which is the law of God, requires that men shall not be angry, that they shall not indulge in the least degree of hatred or envy, that they shall not be covetous; and it declares that the harboring of such evil thoughts is just the same as the commission of outbreaking sin. Now when it is stated that any document is of authority in civil affairs, it is implied that the power to enforce the provisions of that document, and to punish those who violate it, rests with the men at the head of civil affairs. But there is no man, or set of men, who has the power to determine whether or not a man is covetous, or whether he is cherishing hatred or other evil in his heart; therefore we say that it is utterly impossible that the revealed will of God should be the authority in civil affairs. Civil government is for the purpose of keeping men civil, and not of making them moral. When it attempts to interfere in the matter of morals, it assumes prerogatives that belong to God alone. We might cite another instance which shows that to take the revealed will of God as the supreme authority in civil affairs, would be to unite Church and State. The Bible, which teaches the revealed will of God, says that it is the duty of men to believe on Christ and to be baptized. Now if National Reform ideas should be adopted, the Government would not only have the right, but it would be under obligation, to require every citizen and everyone who desired to be a citizen, to be baptized. In other words, baptism would be the evidence of naturalization, just as it is the evidence of church membership, and so the Church and the State would be identical. But it needs no argument to show that such a state of affairs would simply make hypocrites of more than ninety-nine-one-hundredths of the people. Again, the apostle Paul says: “In everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.” 1 Thess. 5: 18. It is manifestly the duty, as it is declared to be the will, of God, for everybody to give thanks for the blessings which they daily receive. Now if the revealed will of God is to be of supreme authority in civil affairs, then civil rulers must enforce that will, and compel every man in the nation to give thanks. Of course they could not compel people to give thanks privately, and that shows the folly of their claim, but they could force them to church to offer thanks nominally, or by proxy, just as people now celebrate Thanksgiving day. But such enforced thanksgiving would be mockery, and it is not the will of God that people should thank him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him. 4. The second paragraph of the preamble contains a bit of sophistry and an assumption which is entirely at variance with the golden rule. It assumes that because the people who came over in the Mayflower, for the National Reformers do not go back of that date, were professed Christians, and because the founders of the early colonies made church membership a test of citizenship, and subjected those who differed with them in belief to the same persecutions to which they had been subjected as dissenters from the ecclesiastical organization of the Old World, therefore this Government ought to be professedly a Christian Government. But when they make this argument, which is a standard plea with them, we ask them, Who was here first? Long before the arrival of the Mayflower, or the voyage of Columbus, this country was inhabited by powerful tribes of Indians, all of whom were pagans. Therefore if the National Reform argument were good for anything it would prove that the religion of this country should be paganism. But the argument does not amount to anything. Notice further that the assumption is that the people who first settle a country, or who are in the majority in any country, have the right to determine what religion shall be tolerated. The National Reform constitution assumes that Governments must recognize some religion, and that such State religion must of course be the religion of the majority, and that no other religion can be tolerated. According to their claim for this country, the established religion of China or India ought to be Buddhism, and that of Turkey ought to be Mohammedanism; and the rulers of those countries ought to say to the missionaries who go there from England and America: “If you do not like our institutions, and cannot conform to them, you can return to your own land; you must not think to bring your foreign customs here.” If this were done, what a howl of indignation would be raised, and the National Reformers would be the very first ones to raise the cry of “persecution.” We agree that it would be persecution, and unjust persecution, too; but, if the National Reform theory of majority rule be true, it is just what ought to be done. If such a course would be wrong in Turkey, how can it be right in the United States? To state the question differently, does an act which is wicked and unjust when done by a Mohammedan, become virtuous and just when done by a professed Christian? National Reformers seem to be blind to the fact that if their scheme should prevail, and they should carry it out as they propose, making a profession of Christianity the basis of citizenship, and declaring indifference to Christ to be treason to the State, they would run directly counter to many things which they now profess to desire. For instance, they profess to be staunch friends to the native Indians, and to the Chinese who are here. They declaim loudly against the injustice that is done to both of these races, and yet if their ideas were carried out, both the Indians and the Chinese would be outlaws, and both would be subject to persecutions, by the side of which all that they have had to suffer would be considered pleasure. 5. Our Government has no Christian features. The Constitution of the United States expressly forbids any religious test of any kind being required as a qualification for office or citizenship. Thus the National Reform preamble is self-contradictory, in that it speaks of the Christian features of our institutions, and the Government’s connection with the Christian religion, while at the same time it admits the fact that the Constitution, which is the basis of the Government, is utterly silent concerning Christianity, or any other religion.4 Yet it is said that the object of this National Reform movement is “to maintain existing Christian features in the American Government.” These Christian features are declared to be the reading of the Bible in our public schools, prayer in our National and State Legislatures, days of fasting and thanksgiving, etc. But the reading of the Bible in the public schools is not a feature of our Government, for there is no law requiring it; whenever it is done, it is a merely voluntary exercise. We will not here discuss the propriety of requiring the Bible to be read in the public schools, but simply call attention to the fact that it is not an existing feature of our Government, as the National Reformers claim. The same may be said of prayer in our National and State Legislatures; there is nothing obligatory in the matter, and it is only a matter of form, as anyone can testify who has ever witnessed the opening of one of these assemblies. We believe in prayer; we believe that the divine injunction to “pray without ceasing” ought to be obeyed by all men, by members of Legislatures as well as ministers of the gospel; but we do not believe that anybody ought to be forced to pray, or to listen to prayers. And we can see no more reason for opening the State Legislatures with prayer than for merchants to open their stores with prayer. To be sure, it would be a very proper thing for the merchant to do; but he ought not to be forced to do it. But there is as yet no law requiring public prayer on any occasion, and so this is not an existing feature of our Government. 6. We affirm most positively that the object of the National Reform Association, as set forth in its constitution, is not merely erroneous, but is unchristian and directly opposed to the spirit of the gospel. Its object is to amend the Constitution of the United States so that it will declare the nation’s allegiance to Jesus Christ, and its acceptance of “the moral laws of the Christian religion,” whatever they may be. This means, in plain language, that the Constitution is to be so amended that the officers of this Government may compel everyone who desires to be a citizen to profess Christianity, and to disfranchise all others. If it does not mean this, it does not mean anything. We have the statement of National Reformers themselves that this is just what it does mean. But the Christian religion knows nothing of any such coercive measures as this. The gospel call is, “Whosoever will, let him come.” The implied permission is that whosoever will not come may stay away. The ministers of Christ are simply ambassadors whose duty it is to entreat people to become reconciled to God, but who have no authority to compel any. Therefore we say that the day that sees the consummation of the National Reform designs will mark the blotting out of Christianity in this country, except among the few who will dare to dissent from such an iniquitous form of government. That national Christianity, so-called, is the enthronement of antichrist, is proved by the Dark Ages, which followed immediately upon the professed conversion of Constantine, and the lifting of Christianity to the throne of the world. We also view with grave apprehension the corruption of our politics, and the immorality not only of those who are exalted to high places in the nation, but of the nation itself; but we know that politics cannot be purified nor immorality checked by legal enactment. There is only one remedy for immorality and corruption, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ. By this alone can men be saved either from the guilt of sin or the love of it. We do not say that the preaching of the gospel will purify politics by making politicians and all others moral men; for the Bible nowhere holds forth the hope that all men will ever repent, and it expressly declares that the righteous will ever be few in number as compared with the wicked, and that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse.” See 2 Tim. 3:13; Matt. 7:13, 14; 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-30, etc. But we do say that whatever of purification is ever accomplished must be solely by the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore we conclude, from the very constitution of the National Reform Association, that while a large majority of its advocates may honestly desire to see a reform brought about in this country, the means by which they propose to secure it are both impolitic and unscriptural, and such as would soon rid the country of what little morality it now possesses. E. J. W.