The American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 31
An infidel paper says: “It is hard for a Christian to be tolerant; to be just. TPage 1
An infidel paper says: “It is hard for a Christian to be tolerant; to be just. There is somewhat in Christianity that makes its adherents bigots.” This is a mistake; those who are called Christians are often bigoted and intolerant, but the spirit of true Christianity is opposed to bigotry and intolerance. The fundamental principle of Christianity is, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them,” and this leaves no room for bigotry and intolerance. The gospel of Christ is a gospel of peace, not a gospel of force. Said the Saviour: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep among wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Acting under the divine commission to preach the gospel, the apostles went forth, not appealing to human governments to compel men to accept their message, but beseeching men “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ.” Said the apostle: “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” The Christian who desires to go beyond these scriptures and compel men to believe, or to act as though they believed, should stop and ask if he has not himself lost the Spirit of Christ, if indeed he ever had it. “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.” Whoever has the Spirit of Christ will bring forth the fruits of the Spirit; and “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his,” even though he may be called by his name. Said the Saviour: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Divine Right and Precedent.
By Alonzo T. Jones
In view of the proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, making Christianity an essential part of the public-school curriculum, and also the Edmunds Bill for the establishment of a national university in which “Christian theology” shall be taught, the question of the Bible in the public schools anywhere in the country is a national question. The principles involved in the Wisconsin case, therefore, are just as much national as though it were a case in a Federal court itself. We have given the Supreme Court side of this case quite fully and repeatedly in THE SENTINEL; but what some would call the other side has not been noted so fully. There has been issued by the Rev. W. H. McAtee, D. D., of Madison, Wisconsin, a pamphlet of seventy-two pages, entitled, “Must the Bible Go? a Review of the Decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the Edgerton Bible Case,” which we must notice. In the beginning of the prefatory note he says:— No American State has ever taken the attitude toward the Christian Scriptures and the worship of Almighty God, now assumed by Wisconsin. Five have expressly refused to do so; and in no other has the question ever been raised.
This is just that much more to the credit of the State of Wisconsin. The attitude that has been taken by this State, is the attitude that properly belongs to every State on earth. It is the attitude of the United States Government, the Constitution of which forbids Congress to have anything to do with religion. There is no State on earth, neither by executive, legislative, nor judicial process that has any means of discovering and deciding authoritatively what are “the Christian Scriptures,” or who is Almighty God. There is no executive, nor legislative, nor judicial power, or authority on earth that has any right to decide for anybody what system of religion that person shall study or read, or hear read; nor have the men who compose any of these departments of government any power to decide for anybody, but their own individual selves, what religion is, what “the Christian Scriptures” are, or who the Lord is. What means has any man, elected to office, of discovering after his election, what is the truth in religion, that he had not before? The men who oppose this decision, including, we are persuaded, Mr. McAtee himself, would deny the right of any one man, in his place simply as a man among men, to decide for anybody else what God it is he shall honor, or what religion it is which he shall receive. This being so in the case of men before they are elected to office, what is there in their election, or in the position to which they are elected which instantly clothes them with a power which neither they, nor those who elected them had before they were chosen to such office? The claim that men sitting in Supreme Court, or in any other court on earth, or in any department of government, are clothed with such power, or authority, or right, is in principle only the old claim of the divine right of kings, and of the present claim of the infallibility of popes. It is, in principle, a claim that there is a divinity that hedges the office itself, and that he who attains to the office becomes, by that means, clothed with the divine right to act authoritatively in the242place of God, and to decide the things of God for all the people. The attitude assumed by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, therefore, in which is denied the principles of the divine right, and the infallibility, of office, is the correct attitude. Its refusal to assume a power that by no possible means can belong to it, is altogether to its everlasting honor; and that it was done in the face of precedents, even though the precedents might have been much more numerous, is just so much more to the honor of the Court. To have followed the precedents of the five States referred to by Mr. McAtee, would have been only to follow precedents that are essentially wicked, because those precedents themselves follow other precedents which are an essential part of the Papal system of Church and State, which is the very “mystery of iniquity.” This in fact is virtually confessed by McAtee, in another place. On page sixty, he says:— The very fact that it is without precedent in all history, is enough to startle the most indifferent. No other State in Christendom has ever dispensed with the Christian Scriptures in its educational system, much less in its penal, reformatory and charitable institutions.
Suppose it be so, that does not prove the decision to be wrong; because the same precedent which proves that no other State in Christendom has ever dispensed with this, will likewise prove that no other State has dispensed with an established religion, with injustice to its people in religious things, or with persecution for conscience’ sake. And these we all know are wrong. In short, the only way that the Court could be right in this, was to act contrary to all the precedents of Christendom and of history. And the safest thing for Wisconsin or any other State to do in this line, is always to go directly contrary to the precedents of Christendom and of all history. But the idea that any court should decide any case upon the merit of precedents is just as far wrong as is the claim that a fallible court should assume the prerogative of infallibility, or that a power, that is merely the collective, representative will of the people, should assume to act by divine right. A court that decides any case upon precedent ceases to be a court of justice, in any true sense of the word, for that is simply to abdicate its own functions and its own reason as a court, and pass off upon the people the will of some other court, chosen by some other people and representing the will of an entirely different class from those who established the court. For any court of justice, or any lawyer, or any man, to allow his honest convictions to be swayed by precedent, is to deny himself; and when he does so in a representative capacity, it is to deny the people whom he represents. There is not a judicial crime, nor a form of governmental oppression that might be committed, that has not abundant precedent. There is not a step that has ever been taken in human progress that has not had to be taken against universal precedent. As a guide in human conduct, it is principle and not precedent that should be followed. The question can never be rightly asked in any such case, “What has been done?” but in every such case the question must be, “What ought to be done?” To rest upon what has been done, is precedent; and that is stagnation. To inquire what ought to be done, is principle; and that is progress. We have not space to enlarge more at this time upon this point, we only say, precedent lawyers, precedent judges, and precedent courts are the bane of States and nations. And precedent preachers are the bane of the human race. It is stated that, according to a recent ukase of the Czar, no person who is not of the Christian faith will be allowed to serve on a jury, unless by the special approval of the Minister of the Interior, and of the Minister of Justice. Of course to be a Christian in Russia, means being a member of the Greek Church; what it would mean in this country, should the National Reformers be successful, remains to be seen; probably membership in any of the so-called orthodox churches would fill the bill. Civil Government and the Divine Law.
By C. P. B.
The National Reform theory is 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, they assert, is not the securing of human rights, but the suppression of wrong and promulgation of good. “Civil government,” says Rev. Foster, one of the National Reform secretaries, “is the keeper of both tables of the law.” We have often shown in these columns that the theory that the State, or civil government, is the keeper of the law of God or of any part of it, is most mischievous, for the reason that it makes men judges of that law, and destroys direct individual accountability to God. If God has made the State the custodian of his law, he has also made it the interpreter and expounder of his law, and it is the duty of the people to receive the law from the State. This is substantially the claim made by the Papal Church, a claim which Protestants hold to be blasphemous. But if it be blasphemy when made by a church, is it not even more so when made in behalf of the State? But, perhaps, for the purpose of this article, the proposition that civil government is the keeper of the divine law will be best examined in the light of the more explicit statement made by Mr. Foster, namely, that “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 proposition be correct that the State is the keeper of the divine law, the conclusion that it is in duty bound to enforce that law cannot be avoided. But let us examine this a little and see how it would work. Passing by all Chinamen as idolaters of the most gross sort, we will apply this rule to the Romanist. Mr. Foster, who is, we must not forget, a representative National Reformer, 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 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, 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 the law. There is no part of the law of God which can be enforced as such, by civil government. For instance, it is within the physical power, though not within the proper sphere of 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. That 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 on the Sabbath, but to “call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable.” And this, civil government cannot compel; therefore,243it 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 example, 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. And 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 previously referred to, that to attempt to enforce the decalogue would be to constitute men judges of the divine law. God is 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 were the prerogative of civil government to decide this question, then, if the judge were a Protestant he would decide from a Protestant standpoint, and the Papist would be punished for the use of pictures and images. But suppose the judge himself were a Papist, he would then decide that such worship was 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 National Reform logic, the decision would be rendered by the duly authorized agent of the Almighty. If indeed it were true that civil government is ordained of God, in the sense in which National Reformers claim 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 this maxim always prevailed, despotic governments never would have been known. The very idea of government which National Reformers advocate, 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 is as clear as the noonday sun 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. Political Divinity.
By Alonzo T. Jones
A SHORT time ago, we printed in THE SENTINEL the statement of Rev. Dr. Parkhurst, of this city, that “it is as much a Christian’s duty to love his country, as his God;” that “the stars and stripes ought to be as much a part of a man’s religion as the Sermon on the Mount;” and that “it is as much the Christian’s duty to go to the polls and vote on election day, as to go to the Lord’s table on communion day.” If this be correct it would be proper to interpret the Scriptures accordingly, and read, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy country with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” And as we read at the close of the Sermon on the Mount, “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock;” it would be proper also to read in connection therewith something like this, “Whosoever, therefore, heareth the laws enacted under the stars and stripes, and doeth them, the same shall be likened unto a man which built his house upon a rock,” etc. It is not necessary to go any further in this. This is sufficient to show how nearly akin to blasphemy such a sentiment is. But Dr. Parkhurst is not alone in this sentiment that reduces divine things to the level of human and political things. The Union Signal runs in the same line. An editorial, in its issue of April 10, says:— In this country where the ballot is the badge of sovereignty, and every voter is a sovereign, no more sacred act can any man perform than that of voting. This likewise puts the most sacred acts upon a level with those of mere human and political expediency. It is neither surprising nor inappropriate, therefore, to find the Signal next referring to Plato for an example in political philosophy. This is perfectly proper, for the sentiment itself is pagan, and it is only right that a pagan should be appealed to. It is a pagan sentiment only that makes political things divine. In the philosophy of paganism, the State is the supreme deity. All political things, therefore, are of the highest order of sacredness, and there is no such thing as a distinction between duty to God and duty to the State. This is the philosophy of paganism, of Dr. Parkhurst, of the Union Signal, and of many others in this day. Christianity separates the things of God from the things of the State; separates duty to God from duty to the State, and renders to God that which is God’s, and to Cæsar that which is Cæsar’s. Chicago Correspondence.
By A. O. TAIT
WHILE the Commissioners of the Columbian Exposition are busying themselves in settling the matter whether the fair shall be on the Lake Front or not, and while they are deciding who is the best man to place at the helm to guide the mammoth undertaking to success, and while the Illinois Legislature is planning for special legislation to give Chicago the legal right to raise, in the way they desire, the necessary funds for the great fair; the clergy and others, in Chicago, are agitating the question thus early as to whether or not the Exposition shall be opened on Sunday. Dr. Utter, of the Unitarian persuasion, expressed himself recently as very decidedly in favor of opening on Sunday. This drew from the ranks of the Sunday-closing advocates a volley, threatening the divine vengeance if the Nation should add rebellion to impiety, by opening on Sunday an exhibition upon which the gaze of the world was fixed. Dr. Henson, in particular, threatened fearful judgments if the great “American Sabbath” should be so disregarded. He advocated the idea, strongly, that Chicago should be made a model Christian city before the fair comes off, so that the inhabitants of the Old World could see a living example of what Christianity would do for a nation. As we listened to the reverend gentleman giving utterance to the above thoughts, we could not refrain from soliloquizing. We will suppose the great Exposition on the Lake Front, as proposed; and in our imagination we will behold every door barred against the visitor whose conscience would not condemn him for going on Sunday; the perfect quiet of the ideal Sabbath reigns throughout the entire grounds occupied by the prodigious exhibit; people from every corner of the earth are there; and as they witness the “Sabbath hush” of the fair, the first thought will be, “what good people must dwell in the immediate surroundings of such an enclosure, fortified by all the insignia of outward piety.” And, since the fair cannot be visited on Sunday, the visitor starts through the city to form an acquaintance with some of these good people. Before fairly entering the thronged streets he sees the glittering sign of a saloon, and, perhaps, hears the carousals of debauchery within. While this shakes his exalted ideas of Chicago a little, he is ready to excuse it by thinking244he is fallen into one of the worst places in the city, a little section as yet unreclaimed from its gross corruption, so he passes on. As he rounds the next corner, another like spectacle of a slum stands out before him; a little later, a gambler allures this unsuspecting innocent into his net, and draws from him his hard-earned money. By this time his eyes are beginning to be opened to the situation, and he secures a copy of the Saturday Daily News, and is perfectly horrified to read its bold attacks on the immoralities of the city. He is dazed as he reads about the crime on every hand, and his sensibilities are fairly paralyzed as he still further reads that the City Council is in connivance with these agents of lawlessness, and that the reputable citizen cannot be stirred to the importance of going to the polls to vote “the rascals out.” Would such a spectacle make a very favorable impression on the visitor, from the Old World, who had not accepted Christ? And yet, such is the condition of Chicago to-day. With a saloon at every turn; with debauchery and vice on every hand; with the grossest corruptions right in the very council chamber of the great city’s lawmakers; and with public sentiment so sleepy on the subject, that some of the Chicago papers claim that they cannot arouse the people to the gravity of the situation, does it look much as though the whole city could be made a model of primitive Christianity before the opening of the Exposition in 1893? Perhaps the exigencies of the situation will suggest to some one, the idea of centering all the great evangelists here, to take the city by storm. But Mr. Moody has been working here for a long time, and what he has been able to accomplish would only be like taking a drop from the great ocean of crime. The renowned Messrs. Jones and Small worked here for some time, but did not seem to make any perceptible impression on the wickedness of this modern Sodom. The famous “Boy Preacher,” Harrison, tried his evangelistic skill on the wicked city, and only a few of its swarming inhabitants seemed to know he was here. While we would very seriously question whether any good comes out of the kind of work done by some of the above named gentlemen, it is true that they, together with many evangelists of lesser note, beside the great army of resident ministers, have been working away on Chicago for “Lo! these many years,” and still the great crimes go on. In the face of all this, is it not the greatest conceivable vagary for a minister to think and talk of having Chicago, in so short a space of time, wholly within the fold of Christ? If it could be done why do not the ministers who believe that way, plan to do it without waiting for the Exposition? If it could be done, is not the minister committing sin who waits for a great fair to move him to action? But, personally, I have as much faith in the idea that Sodom could have been converted, as I have in the conversion of Chicago. But so great is this Sunday-law panacea for all moral ills, that its advocates would say by their actions and words, “Only give us a lever by which we can close the Exposition on Sunday, and Chicago is instantly transformed into a city of saints.” In regard to some of their plans, to secure such would-be benefits for Chicago, I will speak in another letter. The State Cannot Be Religious.
By J. O. Corliss
It is affirmed by those who demand religious legislation, that God requires from all nations, an acknowledgment of his supreme authority, in recognition of his prospering care over them, on the ground that they are the creatures of God, and therefore stand in the same relation to him morally, as human beings. But, if nations ought to acknowledge God's authority over them, solely on account of being his creatures, then all created beings should certainly be required to do the same. Such a rule, however, presents one very formidable objection, which briefly stated is this: Any outward acknowledgment of Deity, is a form of worship rendered in recognition of moral responsibility; and any form of worship is a devotional, or religious act. But every religious act must, of necessity, spring from some preconceived opinion regarding religious doctrine, which requires a certain degree of intelligence. It does not follow, then, that because some existing thing is a creature of God, it is therefore charged with moral responsibility. Not only does this require intelligence, but a high order of intelligence. It is true that any person, who has mental power enough to entertain distinct ideas of a Supreme Being, may recognize his moral obligations to that extent that he will reverently worship God; but it will readily be conceded, that there are those, such as idiots and insane persons, who are not capable of exercising this high privilege, and yet no one will deny that they are God's creatures. There is still a larger class of God's creatures—beasts, birds, and reptiles—that have no visible form of worship in recognition of the source of their being, because they are not possessed of that order of intelligence by which alone, the Creator is recognized as an object of worship, love, and obedience. The recognition of God, therefore, and of accountability to him, require not only a distinct intellectual faculty, but that of a high order. Where, in a government, shall this faculty, this intelligence, be found? In order that there may be a governmental recognition of God, it is necessary that what is thus held to be the government, shall be a distinct entity, a personality, possessing an intelligence of as high an order, and as real, as that which is found in each individual soul. Where, then, we ask again, is there in a government any such intelligent personality as is thus shown to be essential? There is no such thing; there never was any such thing, and there never can be any such thing. While it may be freely admitted that God asks human intelligences to individually acknowledge him as the source of their existence and happiness, the foregoing clearly shows that there is no ground for the assertion that a nation is a moral being, simply because it is one of God's creatures. We do not, however, admit the proposition that nations are, properly speaking, creatures of God; but could it be positively shown that nations are the direct creatures of God, it would in no wise follow that they, as such, are therefore capable of recognizing moral obligation, which requires special intelligence of, and full belief in, a personal Supreme Being. Nations being only political bodies of men, a portion of whom are in doubt upon the question of a personal God, it cannot be truly said that any whole nation entertains such a belief. It may be contended that, because a majority of those in a nation do believe in a personal God, that is, therefore, the faith of the nation. But such a claim does not change the facts of the case. Since the majority in a nation cannot bear moral responsibility for the minority, they cannot represent their religious belief or moral standing. Then, just in proportion as the individuals who constitute the nation personally fail to truly recognize God, the nation itself is lacking in that particular, and no majority representation can make it otherwise. The truth of the matter is, that while each person in the world is a living and conscious moral unit, no collection of such units, however large, or in whatever manner related to each other, can possibly transfer their personal, moral obligations to the political body, and thus make it a moral person. This idea holds even in the Church of God. There, the standing of one member in no way represents the standing of another. One member cannot worship for any one else, neither does the fact that he is enrolled as a member with others who have genuine faith in the tenets of the Church, ensure him salvation with the others, except he has a personal, living faith for himself. Then, if the Church, which was instituted for purely moral purposes, cannot unite into one, the moral units of its organization, how much less can a nation do it which is established on an entirely different basis, and for a wholly different purpose. Every one in a nation may have as much personal faith in God, as the members245of a church, but that does not, therefore, constitute the nation a moral being. Only the personal units are, or can be so held, and these, only because they are individually accountable to God's moral law. Thus, we read: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Rom. 3:19. The words of the prophet are often referred to, in vindication of the idea that nations are moral persons: “The nation and kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish.” But this text proves nothing of the kind. We read in 2 Kings, 9:8, also, that: “The whole house of Ahab shall perish;” but that certainly does not show that the house of Ahab was a personality composing a moral being, distinct from the individuals who formed the household. It could mean nothing more than that the persons who composed Ahab's household were to perish because they were all guilty of wrong. But God never punishes any one for the sins of another, even though he may be connected with a guilty party, by family or national ties. The assurance of this, is found in the words, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” So, if only one of a nation's representatives were found righteous, while all the others were guilty, the one righteous person would be preserved, because of his individual integrity, while the others would be made to suffer for their individual sins only. The apostle has positively stated that “every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Rom. 14:12. This being true, it follows that no one can do more than to answer for his own conduct, at the bar of God. In other words, since every one answers for himself, no one will be required to answer for him. It is therefore plain that the only moral accountability which God recognizes, is that of individuals. Then, when men act in the capacity of statesmen, and administer the affairs of government, the incumbent of one department, cannot be held responsible for the wrongs which he does not sanction, and which may be done in another department with which he has had no connection. On the same principle, no government, as a whole, can be held morally responsible for the actions of even a majority of its representatives. It matters not, therefore, with what body a man may be connected, that body is not responsible for his individual acts. It therefore follows, that if nations are not morally holden, as such, they can have no conscience, and of course, no religion, and have, therefore, no right to meddle with matters of religion.