What Is the Harm?
By James White
WHEN the cry of warning is raised against adopting the proposed Religious Amendment to our National Constitution, we are met with the query, What is the harm? If this is a Christian nation, why not say so? Or, seeing that it is desirable that it shall become a Christian nation, if there is the least hope that we can effect such a desirable object by changing the Constitution, and thereby the form of our Government, why not do so? And if Christ is really the King of nations, the King of our nation, why not acknowledge him in the “fundamental law of the land”? All this appears very harmless and very plausible, to some, but we emphatically say, not to us. We think there is danger in the scheme. This is not a Christian nation; and no constitutional provisions, general elections, or legislative enactments, will ever make it a Christian nation. Any legal declaration that we are a Christian nation would be sheer mockery—a legal falsehood. And, as a Scripture fact, Christ is not yet constituted king of nations. We propose to show, next month, that the arguments of National Reformers on this subject are inconsistent, and contrary to the Bible. Their confident assertions are based on misapprehensions of the present position of Christ, and of the nature of his mediatorial work. The theory of “National Reform,” as now advocated in our country, is the doctrinal theory of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. This their teachers openly avow. Now, they may suppose that they, as prime movers in the scheme, will have the highest seats in “the coming kingdom.” But we predict, and we think with safety, that they will be sadly disappointed. There is another church power, holding the same theory, which is far in advance of them in every way, as far as concerns any prospect of religio-political preferment. Of course we refer to the Catholic Church. Our zealous Reformers may scout this idea, but we have good reasons for our belief. 1. The Reformers are perfectly willing to unite with the Catholics in their effort to change our Constitution. This has been a plea of the Catholics for a long time, as some of them have said in conversations on the future of our country and of their church. The Reformers laud the Catholics for their Church and State principles. The Christian Statesman said:— “We cordially, gladly, recognize the fact that in South American Republics, and in France, and other European countries, the Roman Catholics are the recognized advocates of National Christianity, and stand opposed to all the proposals of secularism.” Of course, and why not? Is not the Pope—the head of the church—“higher than the kings of the earth”? Has not “power over the nations” been committed to him? And this shows what grade of Christianity will be satisfactory to these Reformers, if only it be “National,”—such Christianity as Rome has upheld in South America, in France, and other European countries, as Spain, Italy, and Austria, and in Mexico. It is the Christianity of persecution, of the Inquisition, of the auto da fé, of the extermination of heretics or dissenters. It is Church and State, the State subordinated to the Church. Catholics have always been firm in the faith of the modern Reformers, that “the State and its sphere exist to serve the interest of the Church.” The history of the Romish Church is replete with illustrations of the principles of the National Reformers! Call up the millions of martyrs, and they will testify that the Catholic Church has been, for centuries, a most powerful advocate and administrator of National Christianity! The Statesman further says:— “In a world's conference for the promotion of National Christianity, many countries could be represented only by Roman Catholics.” Yes, Spain, for instance. In that highly-favored kingdom, where National Christianity has flourished and held undisputed sway for many centuries, there could hardly be found a Protestant to raise his voice in its favor. It is “represented only by Roman Catholics.” And a further reason is, that Protestants are exceedingly scarce in that country, for, in almost every part of the kingdom, National Christianity is so highly successful that people can only avow their dissent at the peril of their lives. And the Catholic Church is cordially, gladly, recognized as the advocate and representative of National Christianity by the National Reformers of America, who take delight in avowing themselves as the ardent opposers of Church and State! Consistency has no place in that association. Rome is politic; she is persistent, but she knows how to “bide her time.” She is rather coy when other bodies make advances; and she never makes advances to them. She is too self-assured for that. What are the probabilities for the future? The Reformers have answered the question. Rev. Sylvester F. Scovel is one of the ablest of the modern Reformers. We have considered him one of the coolest and most conservative. Speaking of the common interest of the great religious bodies to uphold Sunday-keeping by law, he said:— “This common interest ought both to strengthen our determination to work, and our readiness to co-operate in every way with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, and the time is not yet come when the Roman Church will consent to strike hands with other churches—as such; but the time has come to make repeated advances and gladly to accept co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it. It is one of the necessities of the situation.”26 That they will be subjected to rebuffs is certain. Rome feels her strength, and will do nothing that can be construed into a concession. Of late many of the Protestant denominations have been “speaking to the hearts” of the Catholics, throwing out compliments, as the Statesman has done, pronouncing the Catholic Church “a branch of the Church of Christ;” all of which causes the Catholics to smile in derision. Among the foremost of those who send compliments to Rome, stands H. W. Beecher. Yet in the controversy between the bishop and his priest, McGlynn, the bishop charged the priest with attending a public meeting and sitting on the platform with Mr. Beecher! But, as Mr. Scovel says, the necessities of the situation compel the Reformers to co-operate with Catholics on their own terms. They are willing to compromise, but Rome never makes compromises to her own disadvantage. If the Romish diplomats do not make all this turn to the interest of “the church,” then they will make a new page in history. 2. The Romish Church is a political power in the United States, and other churches are not. It is a common thing, and has been for years, to hear of efforts being made by politicians “to secure the Catholic vote.” If the people were half awake they would look upon this state of things as a standing menace against our republican institutions. Who ever heard of any effort to secure the Methodist vote, the Presbyterian vote, or the Baptist vote? Why not as well as the Catholic vote? Because the right of private judgment accorded to Protestants, prevents their acting in so close concert. It is understood that the Catholics are acting “under authority”—an authority outside of considerations of duty to the country; outside of regard for American institutions; that their votes are not strictly their own, if the church authorities require them to vote in a body. Their system and church discipline require all this. Inducements have been held out to them by political parties, and, consequently, the Catholics today really govern our large cities, and these cities are great centers of political influence. In the controversy with McGlynn, the bishop said that Catholics must avoid socialistic and irreligious organizations. But, as the report says, from which we copy: “This does not mean that they are not to take an active part in politics whenever the authorities direct them to do so.” Here is the secret of the whole matter. Their political affiliations and movements are directed by “the authorities.” Their votes are cast in the interests of “the church”—a foreign power. And our short-sighted public men have pursued a course to unify this vote, and to strengthen its influence. And now, worst of all, the over-blind and misnamed Protestants are working in the same line, and serving the same foreign cause, for the sake of—what? Of fastening “National Christianity” upon our land, even such as Catholic Rome has bound upon the nations of Europe. “Tell it not in Gath . . . lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice.” And yet we are met with the query, “What is the harm?” 3. Not only are the Catholics courted by politicians and the “Reformers” (was ever a name so misapplied?), but our Government itself is debasing itself before Rome. The following is of sufficient interest to publish entire. It is from the Christian Statesman:— “Politicians are already beginning to set their sails for breezes from the Vatican, which are to decide the next presidential election! A Roman Catholic journal quotes, with tokens of exultation, the following extract from a political newspaper:— “WORTHY OF NOTE.—The fact that President Cleveland sent Cardinal Gibbons a letter of congratulation on the occasion of that prelate's investiture with the purple, is worthy of note, as indicating the change that has taken place since the time when it would have been considered a grave offense for a chief executive to notice in any way, not to speak of felicitating, a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church. One need not go back many years to arrive at such a time, and no longer ago than during the presidency of the late General Grant, considerable unfriendliness existed at Washington, in certain quarters at least, towards Catholicity. The speech on the school question, which President Grant himself delivered at Des Moines, is sufficient proof of that assertion.” “Yes, indeed! Worthy of note and of comment too. No American citizen has any moral right to assume ‘the purple’ here spoken of. The Cardinalate is not an order of the Christian ministry, but a princedom in an alien and anti-republican court, a court which, by the Syllabus, has made war on every principle of the American Constitution. By accepting its ‘purple,’ Bishop Gibbons has accepted the yoke of this alien and odious despotism, and President Grant did right in repelling all advances of the kind. I am a friend of President Cleveland’s administration, but this must be stopped. CITIZEN.” Now that sounds very well; the comment is truthful. But indignant “citizen” must not forget that this “anti-republican court” was making war upon nothing but a “godless Constitution”—a Constitution which, the Reformers say, it is criminal to uphold! Besides, the power that has thus made war upon our infidel Constitution is the best representative of National Christianity on earth! And National Reformers are anxiously waiting for the time when that power will condescend to “strike hands” with them; and they have already expressed a willingness to co-operate in any form which Rome may be willing to exhibit or dictate! O Reform! what a sweet-sounding word, and how appropriately applied to the work of the “National Reform Association”! But one more proof we have to offer; and it is enough. We will let the Christian Nation tell the story in its own language:— “A REMARKABLE AFFAIR.—The revenue cutter, W. E. Chandler, attracted a good deal of attention on Monday morning, June 21, as she steamed down the bay to Quarantine. The Chandler had been seen frequently in these very waters. There was nothing unusual about her, except that she carried a strange flag—a flag not in the international code. No vessels carry it, and in fact it is only the second flag of its kind that has been displayed in the United States. It was made especially for this occasion. What was it? A large banner bearing the symbol of the Holy See upon a white field. A Papal flag floating to the breezes from the bow of a United States revenue cutter! “The facts are these: Archbishop Gibbons, of Baltimore, has been elected to succeed Cardinal McClosky. The investiture of the new Cardinal is attended with great ceremony. Ambassadors are sent from Rome to officially inform the new Cardinal of his election and to confer the beretta. These ambassadors were among the passengers on board the Cunard steamer Servia. A committee of reception had been appointed to go down the bay to meet them. They went, and they went on the revenue cutter. ‘Surveyor Beattie accompanied the party as the representative of the Treasury Department.’ The United States Custom flag floated at the stern, and the Pope’s flag was flying at the bow of the cutter. As the Chandler drew near, the Servia dropped her ensign twice in salute to the Papal banner, and received an acknowledgment in return. “It was this strange flag flying from the cutter that attracted so much attention, and since it has aroused questions in many minds. Why was the Pope’s flag displayed on an American ship in American waters? Why was a revenue cutter placed at the disposal of a private committee? Why was the Treasury Department represented? Why was such unusual respect shown these Pontifical ambassadors who were coming on ecclesiastical business? They were in no sense representative men coming on public business. Our country is far famed for its religious toleration, but there is perhaps just a little too much pandering to Popery, which is, in spirit and in principle, the enemy of genuine liberty. The Roman priesthood has ever been one of the most oppressive, absolute, and degrading despotisms exercised over the minds of men. The chains of priestly domination are so strongly riveted that there can be no liberty of opinion or freedom of conscience. “When Popery had the power it persecuted, and when it has been the weaker power it has ever aimed at the ascendancy, and its votaries have become either restless agitators or the ready tools of arbitrary power and oppression. It is alarming to see so much attention paid to the leaders of a system which has been essentially despotic, which never appeared but as a persecutor, and has ever been the ally of tyranny and the foe of liberty.” The story is well told. Just one sentence we wish to notice. It says: “Our country is far famed for its religious toleration.” Yes, it is too tolerant—quite too tolerant. It is time this error was corrected. “Congress must establish a standard of religion, or admit anything called religion.” (Speech in Reform Convention.) Again: “There is perhaps just a little too much pandering to Popery, which is in spirit and in principle the enemy of genuine liberty.” Oh, no; it was just well-merited respect paid to the highest representative of National Christianity on earth! We have the word of the “Reformers” for it; and as for the Pope being “in spirit and in principle the enemy of genuine liberty,” will the Reformers please to tell us when and where was “National Christianity” anything but the enemy of genuine liberty? They profess so great knowledge of history, let them cite the27page of history where National religion proved itself the friend of genuine liberty. Our point is proved. Romanism is a political power, such as the Reformed Presbyterian Church will never be. It needs no special wisdom to foretell which will be the dominating church influence when this Government is turned into a religious government, and the most popular form of so-called Christianity is placed “on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” Reader, American citizen, can you have confidence in the professions of the National Reformers, with such evidences of their duplicity—of their willingness to “pander to Popery” for the sake of planting in this land that form of Christianity with which Popery has so long used to enslave the masses of Europe? Yes, there is harm—there is danger ahead. If you do not wish a restoration of the Inquisition, a revival of the terrors of the Dark Ages, then turn “to flight the armies of the aliens” by preserving our liberties from the insidious attacks of the “advocates of National Christianity.” J. H. W. Socialism and the Christian Remedy
THE National Reformers are justly alarmed at the growth of Socialism in this country, and they fancy that legislation will prove a sovereign remedy. But Professor R. T. Ely, a political economist, says:— “It is an undoubted fact that modern Socialism of the worst type is spreading to an alarming extent among our laboring classes, both foreign and native. I think the danger is of such a character as should arouse the Christian people of this country to most earnest efforts for the evangelization of the poorer classes, particularly in large cities. What is needed is Christianity, and the Christian church can do far more than political economists toward a reconciliation of social classes. The church’s remedy for social discontent and dynamite bombs, is Christianity as taught in the New Testament.” But that is a commodity of which National Reformers, at least those who write for the press, seem to be woefully destitute. Lacking that, they are forced to use an inferior and useless weapon. Heresy and Unbelief as Crimes
The Catholic Archbishop, of St. Louis, once said: “Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.” National Reform’s Religious Intolerance
If heresy and unbelief are crimes against the State, they ought to be punished as other crimes. And when, under National Reform manipulation, this country shall uphold and maintain that which they call “the Christian religion,” unbelief and heresy will be crimes in this country, and will be punished as such. The only difference between National Reform and Catholicism is that the former attempts to conceal its intolerant spirit, while the latter boasts of it. Religion Above Nationality
IN his Lenten letter of March, 1873, Bishop Gilmour (Catholic) said: “Nationalities must be subordinate to religion.” The Rev. J. W. Foster said in the Statesman, March, 1884, “The State and its sphere exist for the sake of, and to serve the interests of, the church.” Who knows but that Mr. Foster learned his National Reform principles from Bishop Gilmour? The National Reform Idea of Tolerance.
By A. T. J.
In several numbers of the Sentinel reference has been made to the speech made by Rev. Jonathan Edwards, D. D., in the New York National Reform Convention, but that speech is so fully representative of the principles of National Reform, that we feel justified in giving it a more extended notice than we have yet done. There are two or three points in it which we wish here to notice. Said the Doctor:— “We want State and religion—and we are going to have it. It shall be that so far as the affairs of State require religion, it shall be revealed religion, the religion of Jesus Christ. The Christian oath and Christian morality shall have in this land ‘an undeniable legal basis.’ We use the word religion in its proper sense, as meaning a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God.” Here, then, is the National Reform definition of religion, officially declared. Religion is a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God. And they are going to have in this Nation “State and religion.” That is to say, they are going to have “State and a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God.” In other words, they are going to have the State to associate itself with every man in his “personal relation of faith and obedience to God;” and the State must see to it that every “man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God” shall be none other than the Christian relation of faith and obedience. For it is the State that rules; it is the State that bears the responsibility; it is the State’s, and not the individual’s, personal relation of faith and obedience to God that must take precedence. Therefore under their own definition, it is clear that the direct aim of National Reform is to have the State to interfere with, to regulate, and control every man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God. And that is nothing else than a religious despotism. Yet they affect to deny that under such an order of things there would be any oppression. But oppression is absolutely inseparable from the success of the scheme. For to deprive every man of his own choice and the exercise of his own personal relation of faith and obedience to God, is the National Reform idea; but without coercion all men are not going to yield this right; while coercion in such a matter is only the cruelest oppression. Well indeed might Mr. Edwards say, as he does:— “We are warned that to engraft this doctrine upon the Constitution will be found oppressive; that it will infringe the rights of conscience; and we are told that there are atheists, deists, Jews, and Seventh-day Baptists, who would be sufferers under it.” Whether he be atheist, deist, Jew, Seventh-day Baptist, or what not, every man who has a particle of respect for personal right, freedom of thought, or liberty of conscience, must be a sufferer under it. And we cannot avoid the impression, that when these men set forth such abominable doctrine, it must be that the loudest warning comes from their own hearts and consciences, unless, indeed, by the constant assertion of such outrageous principles, they have deadened their consciences. But what reply does Mr. Edwards make to this warning? This:— “The parties whose conscience we are charged with troubling, taken altogether, are but few in number. This determines nothing as to who is right, but the fact remains, and is worthy of note, that taken altogether, they amount to but a small fraction of our citizenship. They are not even as many as those among us who do not speak the English language. And then, further, they are almost wholly of foreign importation, and that of comparatively recent date, so that they did not share in the first settlement of this country; they did not brave the hardships; they did not profess the principles which have made that first settlement memorable. . . . They breathed no protests; they suffered no martyrdom.” His reply to the “warning” is as atrocious as is the doctrine that gives rise to the warning. He replies to an objection by reasserting the doctrine, and adding to it a deliberate insult. It might not be altogether impertinent to inquire, just here, To how great an extent did the Rev. Jonathan Edwards, D. D., or any of the National Reformers, “share in the first settlement of this country”? Of the hardships that made that settlement memorable, how many did he brave? What kind of a martyrdom has he ever suffered? and how many times has he suffered it? If these are the things upon which alone rests the surety of the title to the honor and dignity of American citizenship, what part was there enacted by the National Reformers that in them should be lodged the sum total of all such honor and dignity, and that to such a sole and transcendent degree of merit that to them and them alone it should be granted to bestow the privileges and immunities of citizenship in this great nation? But Mr. Edwards continues his kind endeavor to relieve the minds of the people of all fear that “to engraft this doctrine upon the Constitution will be found oppressive.” And, after giving a clear definition of the terms, atheist, deist, Jew, and Seventh-day Baptist, he says:— “These all are, for the occasion, and so far as our Amendment is concerned, one class. They use the same arguments and the same tactics against us. They must be counted together. . . . The first named is the leader in the discontent and in the outcry. It is his class. Its labors are almost wholly in his interest; its success would be almost wholly his triumph. The rest are adjuncts to him in this contest. They must be named from him; they must be treated as, for this question, one party. Now look at it—look at the controversy. The question is not between opinions that differ, but opinions that are opposite, that are contradictory, that mutually exclude each other. It is between Christianity and infidelity. It is between theism and atheism, between the acknowledgment of a God and the denial that there is any God.” Notice: the question is “between the acknowledgment of a God, and the denial of any God.” This in the face of his own statement just before, that “the deist admits God;” and “the Jew admits God, Providence, and Revelation;” and “the Seventh-day Baptists believe in God and Christianity.” All this, and yet the contest is between the acknowledgment of a God, and the denial that there is any God; between theism and atheism; between Christianity and infidelity! How does it happen then that a people who “believe in God and Christianity,” must be classed with atheists and treated as atheists? Here is how: They “are conjoined with the other members of this class by the accident of differing with the mass of Christians upon the question of what precise day of the week shall be observed as holy.” So then, bear in mind, fellow-citizens, that to “differ with the mass of Christians” is atheism. You may believe in God, and the Bible, and Christianity; you may practice in accordance with this belief ever so consistently; yet if you “differ with the mass of Christians” on a single point, you are an atheist; you may believe and practice all this, yet if you use a single argument against National Reform, the question instantly resolves itself into a contest between Christianity and infidelity—and you are the infidel; between theism and atheism—and you are the atheist; between the acknowledgment of a God, and the denial that there is any God—and you are the one who denies that there is any God. If they will do these things in a green tree, what will they not do in a dry? If this is the result of a difference with this National Reform “mass of Christians” now while they are simply grasping for power, what will the result be when once they shall have secured the power that they want? What right then shall the “atheist” have? Mr. Edwards tells us. Here are his words of comfort and assurance to those who fear oppression under the National Reform rule:— “What are the rights of the atheist? I would tolerate him as I would tolerate a poor lunatic. . . . So long as he does not rave, so long as he is not dangerous, I would tolerate him.” How blessedly tolerant a National Reform régime would be! If you differ with it on a single point, you shall be tolerated as is a28lunatic; that is, kept under surveillance, so long as, like a craven, you allow yourself to be cowed into silence. But as soon as you begin to speak your sentiments, then you are “dangerous,” then you are “raving,” and the gentle National Reform rulers will have such a tender regard for you that they will supply you with bars and doors securely fastened. But Mr. Edwards proceeds:— “I would tolerate him as I would a conspirator. The atheist is a dangerous man.
But he shall be tolerated. He may live, and go free, hold his lands, and enjoy his home; he may even vote; but for any higher, more advanced citizenship, he is, as I hold, utterly disqualified. And we are aiming, not to increase, but to render definite his disqualification.” That would be a model government indeed that would allow a conspirator to “go free, hold his lands, and enjoy his home, and even vote.” It is not the custom of governments to allow these privileges to persons who are plotters against the life of the government. Nor does National Reform propose really to do anything of the kind. We know, and in former numbers of this paper have abundantly shown in their own words, that National Reform does not intend to allow dissenters to vote nor to be citizens. No doubt Mr. Edwards means that he will tolerate him as he would a conspirator, and allow him these privileges “so long as he does not rave,” and “is not dangerous,” and so long as it is not known that he is a conspirator. But as soon as the “atheist” begins to utter any sentiments that “differ with the mass of Christians,” then he is raving, is dangerous, and a conspirator, and they will “tolerate”(?) him as such. Yes, continues this Reverend Doctor of Divinity:— “Yes, to this extent I will tolerate the atheist, but no more. Why should I? The atheist does not tolerate me. He does not smile either in pity or in scorn upon my faith. He hates my faith, and he hates me for my faith.” After the expression of such principles, there is no just ground for surprise that after a few more words he should exclaim: “Tolerate atheism, sir? There is nothing out of hell that I would not tolerate as soon.” NATIONAL REFORM GOLDEN RULE.
That is to say, He does not tolerate me, and I must not tolerate him. He does not smile either in pity or in scorn upon my faith; therefore I must make him grieve in lamentation and woe because of my faith. He hates me and my faith, and I must hate him and his unbelief. And this is National Reform “Christianity.” This gentleman is one of the worthies to whom is committed the interpretation of Scripture on all “moral and civil, as well as ecclesiastical points,” and whose decision must be “final.” This is the way that the sublime principles of the sermon on the mount are to be exemplified when this nation becomes the National Reformed “kingdom of Christ.” But to correspond to such an exposition and exemplification, the sermon on the mount will have to be “re-enacted.” It now reads, in the words of Christ, as follows: “I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven.” But National Reform says unto you, Hate your enemies, curse them that curse you, do evil to them that hate you, and persecute them that despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may agree “with the mass of Christians,” and be true children of National Reform; those who do not tolerate you, why should ye tolerate them? Therefore all things whatsoever ye would not that men should do to you, do ye that unto them; for this is the law of National Reform. EXALTING THEMSELVES ABOVE GOD.
This idea of re-enactment is not altogether hypothetical in this connection, for in the same speech Mr. Edwards said that, “If there be anything in the laws of Moses which the coming of Christ and the subsequent overthrow of Judaism did not abrogate, let them be pointed out—there cannot be many of them—and we are prepared to accept them and have them re-enacted.” That is to say, They were enacted by the Lord of Heaven and earth, and if they have not been abrogated, please point them out and WE will have them re-enacted. How much higher does arrogance need to exalt itself before it becomes dangerous? These men assume the authority to reckon and denounce as “atheists” all who oppose National Reform, and plainly assert that under the power which the “Reformers” would wield, all such “atheists” shall be relegated to the place and condition of the lunatic and the conspirator. But as though that were a small thing to do, they boldly usurp the place of the Most High, and consequentially inform us that in certain portions of the word of God what has not been abrogated they will have re-enacted. Can it be possible that in all this land there is anybody who sees no danger in clothing with civil power such an association of men? Could anything be more intolerant than that which they deliberately propose to do? And yet all this is only the expression of their idea of tolerance! We wish they would convey to us some idea of what in their estimation would be intolerance. It is high time that all understand that National Reform is a standing menace to human liberty; and that the success of National Reform will be the utter destruction of human liberty in free America. A. T. J.