Your ShelfYour Projects

The American Sentinel, Vol. 4, No. 24.

Public Aid to Sectarian Schools

The American Sentinel

Jul 10, 1889

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jul 10, 1889

Public Aid to Sectarian Schools

America notices the fact that the bill in the New York Assembly to repeal all laws giving school money to religious or sectarian institutions in that State, was defeated by a majority of only one, and says that the “fact that the opponents of the un-American system of denominational appropriations mustered half the Assembly, should be an encouragement to continue agitations until every sectarian tub in the United States is compelled to stand on its own faith and not upon the pockets of the tax-payers at large.”
This is, indeed, a consummation to be devoutly desired by all good citizens, but whether there are good grounds to hope for it or not is to be doubted. True, considerable feeling has been manifested during the past year against granting aid to Roman Catholic schools, but, on the other hand, there is quite a sentiment springing up among many so-called Protestants in favor of religious education in the public schools. And should this ever be realized, it can only be made effective by a division of the school funds, such as has long been asked for by the Catholics. So that while the action of the New York State Legislature may be good ground for hope in one direction, the growth of the sentiment referred to gives reason to fear that in this matter of giving public aid to sectarian institutions the Papists will soon have powerful allies in the several Protestant denominations which are advocating religious instruction in the public schools.

Who Shall Be the Pope.

By A. T. J.

In his argument before the Senate Committee in favor of the Blair Amendment to the Constitution, putting the principles of the Christian religion in the public schools, T. P. Stevenson, of the National Reform Association, argued, of course, in favor of it. In his speech he referred to the demand of the Catholic Church that the public school fund shall be divided, and denied the justice of the claim by arguing that,—
“The Roman Catholic Church . . . teaches . . . that the Roman pontiff . . . and the church of which he is the head, are the only authoritative interpreters of the Scriptures; and that since Nations are moral persons, and the questions they deal with are largely moral questions, the authority of the Pope extends over all Nations and Governments.”
With the exception of teaching the authority of that particular pope, this is precisely the teaching of the National Reformers, and of Mr. T. P. Stevenson himself. The fundamental principle of the whole National Reform scheme is that Nations are moral persons, and that they deal with moral questions. Now it is a fact that the Scriptures are the standard of morality. Whatever person or power, therefore, that has to deal with moral questions, has necessarily to do with the interpretation of Scripture; and whatever person or power that undertakes authoritatively to deal with moral questions, necessarily has to be the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. The National Reform Association declares that the Nation is a moral person, and proposes by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to declare the right of the Nation authoritatively to deal with moral questions. When the time comes, the Nation by some means will just as certainly have to be the authoritative interpreter of the Scripture. And whether that authority of interpretation be lodged in the Supreme Court, or in a board of ecclesiastics, or in one single ecclesiastic, it is all the same, that authoritative interpreter is, to all intents and purposes, a pope. And that that authority should be seated in the Capitol of the United States, at Washington City, instead of in the Vatican, at the city of Rome, does not relieve the teaching of its essential iniquity, and should not commend it any the more to the American people. A pope is the inevitable logic of the proposition, whether it be taught by the Catholic Church or by the National Reform Association; and it is no use for that Association, or for the Protestants of this country generally, to deny the claims of the Catholic Church so long as they assert the principles upon which alone those claims are based. The only difference between the teaching of the Catholic Church and the National Reform Association on these questions is that the Catholic Church openly asserts, not only the principles, but the logic of the principles; while the National Reform Association asserts the principles, and pretends to deny the logic of them. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church is consistent, while the National Reform Association is wholly inconsistent. A. T. J.

Bad Tactics.

By Alonzo T. Jones

In his argument before the Senate Committee in behalf of the amendment establishing religion in the public schools, February 15, 1889, Doctor Morris drew the line between “the evangelical church bodies on one side, and the Roman Catholics on the other.” Then he said: “Now the fact that the public sentiment of the United States stands divided along the lines suggested, gives importance to the question as to the relative strength of the two bodies.”
Then, in comparing the relative strength of the two bodies, he said: “According to the latest statistics, in the year 1886 the Roman Catholic population was 7,200,000. That estimate included every man, woman, and child of the Catholic faith in the United States of America at that time. . . . All their children are baptized into the church, and every person of the Roman Catholic faith is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and is so enumerated and reported. . . . Along that line the Roman Catholics in 1886 were represented to be 7,200,000 citizens, including children. The evangelical population at that time—not the church-membership simply, but the population—numbered 42,646,279.”
Senator George—“Those figures, I suppose, are assuring to us politicians that in getting after the Catholics and all that sort of thing, we are not getting in a minority.”
Doctor Morris—“Well, sir, you are at liberty to make a very wise inference from the facts which are before you, without comment so far. And now that brings us to a consideration of the peril arising to the country from the method adopted by this minority, this acute, adroit, determined, and united minority, to accomplish their purposes. They seek to secure them not so much by the American method of intelligent agitation before the great jury of the public, presenting the facts and discussing the principles in the open light of broad day, but by political methods, at the handling of which they are adepts.”
Senator George—“Let me ask you a question there. Is not this proposed amendment, and are not these proceedings here, rather an imitation of what is charged against the Catholics, of attaining their ends by political methods?”
Doctor Morris—“It would be very strange, sir, if we would not follow an enemy into any battlefield to which he might resort to accomplish his purposes.”
This is a new sort of military tactics. That a general should leave a field in which he has every advantage, and follow an enemy into a field where he confesses that that enemy has every advantage, is certainly a novel method of conducting a campaign. He condemns the Catholics for not seeking to accomplish their purposes by the American method of intelligent agitation before the great jury of the public. He knows, and so do we all, that the Roman Catholic claim on the question of religion in the public schools cannot for a moment stand in the field of public discussion against the principles of the American Constitution. Therefore, the proper thing to do for those who oppose the Roman Catholic scheme is to make the public discussion as wide, as public, and as determined as possible. If Mr. Morris’s forty-two million of “evangelicals” will take the true American position and stand upon the position of the American Constitution, they need not fear for one moment any peril that might arise from Roman Catholicism; but instead of doing this, these men abandon that field where they have every advantage, and in their own words follow their enemy into the battle-field to which he resorts to accomplish his purposes and not only that, but in that field they undertake to meet the enemy with the very weapons at the handling of which they confess that the enemy are adepts. It is impossible in such a case that there can be any other result than that the evangelicals will be ingloriously defeated.
This, however, is not the first instance in which the “evangelicals” have done the same thing. They first went into the enemy’s field by demanding the teaching of religion in the public schools; they now find that they are getting worsted in the contest, and instead of honorably retreating to firm ground in a field in which they could have every possible advantage, they blindly follow the enemy yet further into the field of his own choosing, there to use weapons in the use of which they know the enemy are adepts. Was there ever another instance of such folly?
Senator George probed to the heart the scheme that underlies this whole movement, when he asked Doctor Morris whether these proceedings were not “rather an imitation of what is charged against the Catholics, of obtaining their ends by political methods.” That is precisely what it is, and that is all that it is. And as the Protestants, taken as a whole, are so overwhelmingly in the majority in this country, the probabilities are altogether in favor of their winning in the race, and the result can be nothing else than the establishment of a Protestant religious despotism after the model of the Catholic one of the Middle Ages. Will the American people be wise in time? A. T. J.

National Reform and Consent of the Governed

“I do not believe that Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and so the object of this movement is an effort to change that feature in our fundamental law.” So said Rev. W. D. Gray, secretary of the Missouri National Reform Convention. And he was afterward elected secretary of the permanent State organization—the Missouri Sabbath Association.

The Sunday Law’s Moral Basis

The Pearl of Days, the official organ of the American Sabbath Union, says:—
“It is worthy of note that in the discussion of the Sunday question by the secular press the divine principles underlying that question are often incidentally conceded. This may be unintentional; nevertheless, the lesson taught us is most suggestive. We see from this fact that the Sunday question, considered only in its economic relations, can never be wholly divested of its moral basis.”
It is also worthy of note, that, notwithstanding all of Field Secretary Crafts's twaddle about the civil Sabbath, that for which he and his co-laborers are working is the passage of a law which Mr. Crafts himself has declared “makes Sunday the ideal Sabbath of the Puritans; which day shall be occupied only by worship.”

Our Authority for That Statement.

By Editor

A CORRESPONDENT at Gold Hill, Oregon, writes to ask our authority for the statement that the American Sabbath Union “declare the basis of their movement to be the fourth commandment.” We are surprised that any reader of the AMERICAN SENTINEL (for such we suppose our correspondent to be) should ask such a question, because our authority has been repeatedly stated; but for the benefit of new readers and of those who may have overlooked the matter, we will restate a few points:—
1. Colonel Elliott F. Shepard is president of the American Sabbath Union, so called, as well as editor of the New York Mail and Express, which paper, in its issue of January 25, 1889, published in full Mr. Shepard’s address delivered upon the occasion of his election as president of the Union. In that address Mr. Shepard used the following language: “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve; if the Lord be God, serve him; and if the world be god, serve that. You have to say yes or no—whether you will stand by the decalogue, whether you will stand by the Lord God Almighty, or whether you will turn your back upon him. The work, therefore, of this society has just begun. We do not put this work on mere human reasoning, for all that can be overthrown by human reason. We rest it directly and only on the divine commandment.”
2. On the occasion of the hearing on the Blair Sunday-rest bill before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, December 13, 1888, Mr. Crafts, field secretary of the American Sabbath Union, introduced to the committee as the next speaker, Dr. Herrick Johnson, of Chicago, and in the course of Mr. Johnson’s remarks the following dialogue took place between himself and Senator Blair, chairman of the committee:—
“Mr. Johnson—This appointment of one day in seven is arbitrary. There is nothing in nature to indicate that division of time. There is the day of twenty-four hours, there is the month, there is the year, all these are natural divisions; but there is nothing in nature to indicate the weekly division, the observance of one day in seven. It is arbitrary, and we regard that as an evidence of its divine origin.
“The Chairman—How do you base the Sabbath itself upon a divine ordinance when there is no natural law to indicate which day is to be observed?
“Mr. Johnson—It is in revelation, and it is found to be exactly in accord with the laws of nature.
“The Chairman—You base the law of one day’s rest in seven upon revelation; that is to say, upon the Bible?
“Mr. Johnson—Yes, sir.
“The Chairman—There are many who doubt that it is established by revelation, are there not?
“Mr. Johnson—I think no one who accepts the Bible doubts that there is one day in seven to be observed as a day of rest.
“The Chairman—Will you just state the authority?
“Mr. Johnson—‘Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. . . . Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work.’”
[This quotation is from pp. 50, 51 of “Notes of a Hearing before the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, Thursday, December 13, 1888, on the bill (S. 2983) entitled, ‘A bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.’” This is a public document, and if the edition is not exhausted can be had free of charge by application to any member of Congress.]
On this occasion Mr. Johnson was speaking directly in behalf of the American Sabbath Union, and, as we have already stated, was introduced to the committee by the field secretary of that Union.
3. But again, in a speech delivered before the General Assembly of the Knights of Labor, held in Philadelphia, November 16, 1888, and reported in the Journal of United Labor (the date we are unable to give) Mr. Crafts himself said: “A weekly day of rest has never been secured in any land except on the basis of religious obligation. Take religion out and you take the rest out.”
4. Again; the Lutheran Observer (524 Walnut Street, Philadelphia), of December 21, 1888, a paper which is in hearty sympathy with the American Sabbath Union, attributes to Mr. Crafts this language: “The bill which has been introduced makes Sunday the ideal Sabbath of the Puritans, which day shall be occupied only by worship.” The bill referred to was Senator Blair’s Sunday-rest bill.
Other utterances might be quoted, but these are abundantly sufficient to show that we have not misrepresented the leaders of the American Sabbath Union when we say that they “declare the basis of their movement to be the fourth commandment.” And yet they deny that their movement is religious, asserting that it is in the interests of the workingmen, and that it in no way tends to a union of Church and State.

Why Not Watch Protestants, Also?

By W. N. Glenn

REV. MAKEPIECE TRUEWORTHY, of Washington, D. C., is very much alarmed at the innovations of the Roman Church in this country. In a communication to the San Francisco Occident (Presbyterian), he says:—
“In order to aid in exposing Romanism to the Americans, I have set to myself the task of an examination of some of the best writings lately from the press, and also to a careful examination of Rome’s secret work here at the capital—a work which is startling in some respects. When the American people once open their eyes to things they will protest, to the shedding of blood, to this Romanizing of our country.”
Of the new Catholic university being erected near Washington, he says:—
“A great many calm men look with justifiable distrust upon this proposed great Catholic university at the seat of our Government. It is probably true that it is a part of a well-settled purpose to prosecute a great political propaganda from the seat of Papal authority in Rome. The late revival of Papal opposition to all things Protestant, whether religious, or the civil institutions growing out of Protestant thought, is indicative of a Papal purpose which Americans should watch closely.”
The question naturally arises, in view of the persistent work of the National Reform Association and the National Sunday Union, Why not at the same time watch the purposes of these so-called Protestants? They are engaged in building an image to the same Papal power concerning whose secret work at the capital the Rev. Mr. Trueworthy is so much alarmed. All the historical oppressions and intolerance of the Papal Church have been under the privileges of Church and State Governments, whether inEurope or elsewhere. And the representatives of all the principal Protestant denominations in the United States, including the one to which Mr. Trueworthy belongs, have indorsed the efforts of the “Reformers” to create such a union in the Government.
Now if Rome is powerless, as history proves it to be, to fully carry out her designs without a Church and State Government, and the Protestant churches are laboring to bring about that condition of government under which her ultimate ends will be possible—which party is it that most needs watching? National Reformers are not only endeavoring to open the gates of religious legislation, but they avow a willingness to “join hands” with the Catholic Church in that work whenever the latter will accede to the coalition. Yes, the Reformers are not only willing to join Rome in such a scheme, but take the initiative in the movement, and favor “repeated advances” toward the Papal church for that purpose, even in the face of anticipated “rebuffs.”
And the Catholic leaders understand the situation, evidence of which has been given in the AMERICAN SENTINEL in the past, notably in the case of the priest, who, when asked what his church was going to do in the matter of the Blair bills, replied that it was not doing anything in particular; “the Protestants are coming over to us,” he said; “all we have to do is to wait.” We see, then, that while Mr. Trueworthy and other vigilantes are watching the “Papal purposes” in this country, the Catholics are also watching Protestant progress Romeward, with evident satisfaction.
So those who have a care to guard the free institutions of our country from the scourge of church intolerance, will find it necessary to keep an eye on that professedly Protestant party whose avowed purpose is to make such a change in the Constitution as will open the door for church domination of political affairs. There is no more danger from the evil influences of the “beast” itself than from those of its “image.” There is no reason to be any more afraid of out-and-out Roman intolerance than of the same spirit under the guise of Protestantism.
W. N. GLENN.

Religious Persecution and Civil Law

AMONG all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for the violation of what government denominated the law of God.—Senate Report, 1829.

Rev. J. M. Foster on Religious Legislation.

By C. P. BOLLMAN

THE Midland, a United Presbyterian paper, published in Omaha, Nebraska, had an article by Rev. J. M. Foster, some weeks since, on “The Basis of Sabbath Legislation,” which contains some thoughts worthy of notice. Mr. Foster takes the position that civil government is not a voluntary association but a divine institution, and that it is clothed with authority and power that transcend all human institutions. Its design, he says, is the suppression of wrong and the promulgation of good. “Civil government is the keeper of both tables of the law.”
He is correct in saying that civil government is ordained of God. Says the apostle, “The powers that be are ordained of God.” But it is nevertheless true, as asserted in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed;” neither is there any conflict between the Scriptures and the Declaration of Independence. God has ordained that civil government should exist, that is, that it is right and proper that there should be civil government, but he has not ordained the particular form of government, nor that certain men or certain families shall rule over their fellow-men. To take any other view of the matter than this is to assert the divine right of kings; and to assert that right, is simply to place our own country outside of the pale of the ordinance of God.
The position that “civil government is the keeper of both tables of the law,” will be best examined in the light of the further statement made by Mr. Foster, to wit, “the State is the keeper of the second commandment, and should prohibit idolatry either on the part of the Chinaman or Romanist.” Now, if the first position be correct, that the civil government is the keeper of both tables of the law, then the conclusion which Mr. Foster draws from it must also be correct.
But passing by all Chinamen as idolaters of the most gross sort, we will apply this rule to the Romanist. Mr. Foster says that the State should prohibit idolatry on the part of the Romanist. But the Romanist denies that he is an idolater. He will admit that he bows to pictures and images, but will stoutly assert that they are simply symbols of the Unseen, to which his worship is in reality directed, and that the image or picture is only for the purpose of assisting his faith. It is true that, as Protestants, we call that idolatry and such it is; but covetousness is also idolatry (Col., 3:5), and is just as truly a transgression of the divine law as are the more gross forms of idolatry. Shall we then punish covetousness?
But it may be said that the law can only take cognizance of the outward acts, and that while it may punish a man for bowing down before an image it cannot punish him for the thoughts and intents of the heart, because man cannot determine the thoughts of the heart. But if the “State is the keeper of both tables of the law,” and is to enforce the law as the law of God, where or how shall we draw the line? Is it not as certain that the man who shows by his every-day life that he is covetous is a violator of the divine law, as it is that the man who prays to a picture of the Virgin Mary is an idolater? It may even be the case, and it is often true, that such an one is in every way a better citizen, a better neighbor, and a better man, than the one who is covetous. Moreover, it is just as easy to demonstrate to the satisfaction of an impartial person that the one is an idolater as it is to show that the other is an idolater. The occasional act of the one shows that he is guilty of violating the second commandment, while the whole life of the other, his every business transaction, all his dealings with his neighbors,—all these show conclusively that he violates the same commandment. Shall the law lay its hand upon the one and spare the other?—Certainly not.
Properly speaking, the State is not the keeper of either table of the law. There is no part of the law of God which can be enforced as such, by any human Government. It is within the physical power, though not within the proper sphere of the Government, to compel its citizens to refrain from ordinary labor upon Sunday or on any other day of the week that it may see fit, but it is not within the power of any Government to compel its citizens to obey the fourth commandment. The fourth commandment says, “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy,” and simply resting from labor is by no means all that is required in that commandment. According to Isa. 58:13, true Sabbath-keeping is not only to refrain from labor upon the Sabbath, but to “call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable.” And this, civil government cannot compel; therefore, it is impossible for civil government to enforce the fourth commandment; neither can civil government enforce any other commandment as the law of God. Take, for instance, the sixth. The Saviour said that he that hateth his brother is a murderer. A man may manifest all the hatred of which he is capable, and may even express that hatred, and yet the civil law cannot lay hold upon him as a murderer. True, if he makes threats, that is, if he declares his intentions to use violence, the law can place him under bonds to keep the peace. It may be demonstrated as fully as human testimony can demonstrate anything, that his heart is full of hatred, and yet no one would say that the civil law ought to touch him. Still, in the sight of God the man is a murderer. The seventh commandment furnishes another illustration, which we need not dwell upon, as all are familiar with the teachings of the Saviour on that point. But this is sufficient to show that civil government cannot enforce the law of God.
There is another feature of this matter which demands attention, namely, the fact that to attempt to enforce the decalogue would be to constitute men judges of the divine law. God should be the interpreter of his own law. Human beings differ in their interpretations of that law. Of this, the second commandment furnishes an illustration, as already shown. The Protestant says that bowing to an image or picture is idolatry; this the Romanist denies. Now who shall judge between them and decide which is right. If it is the prerogative of civil government to decide this question, then if the judge be a Protestant he will decide from a Protestant standpoint, and the Papist would be punished for the use of pictures and images. But suppose the judge himself be a Papist, he would then decide that such worship is not idolatry, and the accused would go free. Thus it appears that that which is idolatry to-day might be held to be perfectly right to-morrow, or that which would be decided to be idolatry in New York might be held to be perfectly innocent in New Jersey; and yet, in both instances, according to Mr. Foster’s logic, the decision is rendered by the duly authorized agent of the Almighty.
If it indeed be true that civil government is ordained of God in the sense in which Mr. Foster claims that it is, then the Government of Spain in the days of the Inquisition was just as truly a Government of God as is the Government of England or the Government of the United States to-day. But it cannot be true that Governments are ordained of God in that sense, for if it were true, God would be the minister of sin. “Governments,” says the Declaration of Independence, “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” And had the maxim always prevailed despotic Governments never would have been known. The very idea of Government which Mr. Foster advocates is responsible for the barbarities and iniquities of all the despotic Governments in the world, and the only wonder is that citizens of the United States could for a moment entertain such a proposition. It only shows, however, that the National Reform theory is at variance with the principles of this Government, and to carry out the National Reform idea would be simply to overthrow republican institutions.
C. P. BOLLMAN.

Heresies as Civil Crimes

IN proportion as the ecclesiastics became co-legislators, heresies became civil crimes, and liable to civil punishments.—Dean Milman.

The Principles of the Christian Religion.

By A. Delos Westcott

AMONG those who are exerting their energies to secure an amendment to the Constitution whereby instruction in the “principles of the Christian religion” shall be maintained in all the common schools, it is amusing to note the conflicting and absurd claims as to what constitutes the principles of the Christian religion. The latest of these to which the writer has listened was made in a public sermon by a Methodist minister of considerable ability and some local reputation. In order to allay the fears of his audience that the adoption of the Blair amendment would result in the establishment of a national religion, he said that the provision for instruction in the principles of the Christian religion “means simply that the children are to be taught the necessity of telling the truth, and to refrain from swearing.” This explanation seemed to be intensely pleasing to those who favor the amendment, since it serves to quiet the apprehensions of the distrustful.
On this version of the amendment I submit the following points:—
1. There is not a school in the land where the pupils are not now taught the “necessity of telling the truth, and to refrain from swearing.” Therefore no amendment of the Constitution is needed to secure such instruction.
2. If it is desired merely to teach the “necessity of telling the truth, and to refrain from swearing,” why not say so in the amendment itself, and thus settle the question for all coming time. Or, better still, why not leave out all reference to the Christian religion, or any other religion? For the amendment provides for instruction in “virtue” and “morality,” and anybody knows that these terms cover the principles of truth-telling, and refraining from swearing. The fact that the words, “and the principles of the Christian religion,” have been added to the proposed amendment, shows that something is wanted which is not fully comprehended in the terms “virtue” and “morality,” in the common acceptation of these terms; and for anyone to deny this is only to show either his stupidity or his lack of candor.
3. The most important, comprehensive, and fundamental truths of the Christian religion constitute the principles of that religion. Principles are necessarily comprehensive, and all really essential truths relating to any subject must be embraced in its principles. For example, the fundamental principle of God’s moral law is love. This one word embraces every moral truth in existence. Any person who has always loved God with all his heart, might, mind, and strength, and his neighbor as himself, is a perfectly moral being. Likewise, anyone who conforms to the principles of the Christian religion is a Christian, and whoever believes in those principles is a believer in Christ and Christianity. Now if “telling the truth, and to refrain from swearing,” constitute the principles of the Christian religion, it follows that whoever subscribes to these principles is a believer in Christ and Christianity, and that all who practice these principles are Christians. That many Jews, Mohammedans, and atheists practice these principles cannot be denied, while a still larger number assert their belief in them. Yet all of these people utterly repudiate Christ and every doctrine based upon his existence. By this it is demonstrated again that there is nothing distinctively Christian in these principles.
4. The “first principles” of the Christian religion are those truths best adapted to the comprehension of beginners. Paul calls such principles “milk,” and the persons who have not mastered these principles he speaks of as being “babes.” Heb. 5:12–14. Now, what did Paul teach first concerning the Christian religion?—“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,” etc. 1 Cor. 15:3, 4. Here, then, is one of “the first principles” (Heb. 5:12–14) of the Christian religion according to the Scriptures. Are there any more of these principles? “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” Heb. 6:1, 2.
We have now found at least seven distinct principles of the Christian religion, and the last six are plainly declared to be “foundation” principles, and they are all “according to the Scriptures.”
Now if the friends of this religious amendment, in order to quiet the fears of the people, can without a twinge of conscience warp and compress the principles of the Christian religion into something which has not the slightest trace of distinctive Christianity in it, what is to hinder them from swelling those principles into an elaborate creed, when once their amendment has been adopted? If they will multiply the signature of Cardinal Gibbons by 7,200,000, why will they not multiply the principles of the Christian religion to any desired extent? If the Blair amendment ever becomes a part of the National Constitution, there is little doubt that the same energy will be displayed in expanding these principles that is now employed in reducing them to the principles of common civility.
A. DELOS WESTCOTT.
Continue reading: The Theory of Our Constitution Is the Right Theory