ATJ
WHEN in the course of human events the lands of this hemisphere had become peopled with those who, fleeing from the hard and oppressive conditions which beset their existence in the Old World, sought to establish themselves under the happier conditions afforded by a new country and a new order or things, it at length became necessary, in view of the threatening attitude of certain European powers, and especially of a combination calling itself the “holy alliance,” to declare as the sentiment and determination of the United States of America, that the monarchies of the Old World must not be permitted to extend their systems further upon these shores; but that the peoples of this New World must be left free to work out their own destinies under the inspiration of their own genius, and the guiding star of the republican principle of government. This was the Monroe doctrine,—a highly proper one, and a credit to the nation which gave it birth. AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.1
But prior to this pronouncement, upon another and even greater occasion, a doctrine had been proclaimed from this country, which, broader in principle and wider in application, interposed a shield between all despotism and the rights of mankind. An assembly of men great alike in statesmanship, patriotism, and political wisdom, speaking with a voice that was heard throughout the world, had said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.2
And in the spirit of this declaration, the Constitution of the new Republic—its fundamental law—declared, in the language of its First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Thus did this new-born nation lay the foundation of “a new order of things,” by proclaiming its adherence to the great principle of equal civil and religious rights for the men. AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.3
This is the greater and higher Monroe doctrine,—the foundation upon which rests all the force and propriety of the doctrine which warns off from these shores the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World. And this higher doctrine is being violated; not by a foreign foe, but by a domestic one,—a conspiracy within out own borders. The AMERICAN SENTINEL declares to the people to-day that the great American principle of equal civil and religious liberty to all is denied both by words and deeds in this land, and is likely to be overthrown completely in our very midst. AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.4
Do you ask the proof? Witness the rapid growth of the sentiment in favor of religious legislation; witness the organizations springing up all over the land, powerful in numbers and influence, which demand legislation enforcing the observance of a religious institution,—the Sunday sabbath; witness the Sunday Court of the United States declaring, in February, 1892, that “this is a Christian nation,” and the Congress of the United States declaring, in the summer of the same year, that “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” is the Christian Sabbath; witness the revival of the dragon spirit of religious persecution against good and honest citizens who observe the seventh day, as enjoined by the fourth commandment; witness these men, everywhere acknowledged as good citizens, dragged before the courts, fined and imprisoned, and worked in chain-gangs, because they will not exalt the Sunday to an equality with the Bible Sabbath; witness the bill now before Congress to secure an amendment to the Constitution which will make it “acknowledge” God, and declare his revealed will to be the supreme law of the land. Witness all these efforts being made to plunge our nation into the deadly vortex of religious controversy, and witness also the blind indifference of the people to their danger. AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.5
Shall the higher Monroe doctrine be maintained? Shall a halt be called upon this conspiracy against American liberty? Citizens, Americans, What is your answer? AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.6
ATJ
THE ambition of popular Christianity as it exists in the various denominations of the day is not organic union but federation, or more properly speaking, confederacy. AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.1
In his book, “Practical Christian Sociology,” with which our readers are already familiar, Dr. Crafts says:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.2
There are Christian remedies for social ills that can best be applied by State and national federation of churches.... Some day it is to be hoped the churches will be shamed or aroused to undertake a united campaign against social evils in some more effective way than by the paper bombardment of mere resolutions.... An official national federation of Christian churches in a strong and well-supported National Bureau of Reforms might be a most effective method of ethical home missionary work. The bureau so named, that I have established unofficially, will be glad to yield the field to an official one. Let us hope the proposed Federal Council of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches will erelong become a national federation of all churches to save society as well as souls. Such federations of churches for the solution of social reforms were recommended by a conference of Christians, chiefly from Great Britain, representing many denominations, which assembled at Grindelwald, Switzerland, in the summer of 1894. 1“Practical Christian sociology,” pp. 52-54. AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.3
Among the “reforms” to be undertaken by the proposed federation, Dr. Crafts gives a prominent place to the “crusade” against “sabbath-breaking,” and in this “reform” he suggests that the forces of Rome be enlisted; he says:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.4
On such reforms as temperance, sabbath reform, divorce, and purity, Roman Catholic coöperation may in a measure be secured. In many cases it will be wise, at the initiation of a federation of churches, to undertake only the one reform in which the churches are most fully united, which will usually be sabbath reform, leaving the other reforms to be added to the plan when federation has achieved some advance in its first undertaking. 2Id., pp. 47, 48. AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.5
In the Christian Statesman of Dec. 9, 1893, of which paper he was then editor, Dr. Crafts said: “The most powerful enemy civil liberty has ever had to contend against is the Papacy.” And yet knowing this he proposes federation with that enemy for the purpose of effecting so-called “reforms” by political action! AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.6
Our author should read again the history of the ages and there learn that even the Church cannot be trusted with civil power; and most dangerous to liberty either civil or religious would be such a federation as Dr. Crafts proposes, and this whether it embraced Rome or not. AMS January 16, 1896, page 17.7
Sixty-seven years ago the Sunday-keeping churches of this country united in a demand upon Congress for the discontinuance of Sunday mails. The petitions were referred to the Senate and House Committees on Post Offices and Post Roads. January 19, 1829, the Senate Committee reported adversely to the proposition. Among other things the committee said:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.1
Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are, in the opinion of the committee, always dangerous. This first effort of the kind calls for the establishment of a principle which, in the opinion of the committee, would lay the foundation for dangerous innovations upon the spirit of the Constitution, and upon the religious rights of the citizens. If admitted, it may be justly apprehended that the future measures of the government will be strongly marked, if not eventually controlled, by the same influence. All religious despotism commences by combination and influence; and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it, and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequence. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.2
The report was adopted. A similar report was made to the House in March, 1830. Of the proposed measure the House Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, said:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.3
If the measure recommended should be adopted, it would be difficult for human sagacity to foresee how rapid would be the succession, or how numerous the train of measures which follow, involving the dearest rights of all—the rights of conscience. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.4
Because of the wisdom of our statesmen of the early years of the century, the “federation” then formed to effect “social reforms” by congressional action failed of its purpose.... . come. In his “Notes on Virginia,” query 17, Mr. Jefferson said:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.5
The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecution, and better men be his victims.... The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.6
We live at a time when two dangers,—the one foretold by Jefferson, the other by the Congress of the United States in the reports from which we have quoted,—both threaten our liberties at the same time. Some at least of our rulers have become corrupt, caring more for power than for principle, our people have become careless, and while gigantic religious combinations to effect political purposes already exist, and are doing their work, still others are proposed and urged, and that on a much larger scale. Certainly there is just cause for alarm. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.7
The closing of the World’s Fair by act of Congress is an illustration of the power of a gigantic religious combination and of the subserviency of politicians. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.8
In 1892 the churches made their demand for a Sunday law. They presented their memorials and petitions backed up with such persuasive words as those which follow from Presbyterian churches in Brighton, N. Y.; Parma Center, N. Y.; and Rochester, N. Y., and recorded in the Congressional Record of May 25, 1892, thus:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.9
Resolved, That we do hereby pledge ourselves and each other, that we will from this time henceforth, refuse to vote for, or support for any office or position of trust, any member of Congress, either senator or representative, who shall vote for any further aid of any kind for the World’s Fair except on conditions named in these resolutions. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.10
To secure the popularity and patronage which were thus put up at public auction by the churches, our nation’s legislators assembled in Congress did yield to the demand for a Sunday law, and did enact such a law in three distinct ways and places; and for the reasons as stated by themselves, thus:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.11
If I had charge of this amendment in the interest of the Columbian Exposition, I would write the provision for the closure in any form that the religious sentiment of the country demands, and ... I say to the junior senator from Illinois [Mr. Palmer] he had better yield to this sentiment, and not let it go out to the country that there is the slightest doubt that if this money shall be appropriated, the Exposition will be closed on Sunday.... I should make the closure provision satisfactory to those petitioners who have memorialized us against the desecration of the Lord’s day. 3Senator Hiscock, Congressional Record, July 13, 1891, p. 6755. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.12
And again upon this demand for Sunday law, in the same debate, it was said:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.13
Now, if gentlemen repudiate this, if they desire to reject it.... I should like to see the disclaimer put in white and black and proposed by the Congress of the United States. Write it. How would you write? ... Word it, if you dare; advocate it, if you dare. How many who voted for it would ever come back here again? None, I hope.... You endanger yourselves by opposing it. 4Senator Hawley, Id., p. 6728. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.14
It was the same way in the House. A dispatch from Washington to the Chicago Daily Post, April 9, 1892, gave the following from an interview with a member of the House Committee on the World’s Fair:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.15
The reason we shall vote for it is, I will confess to you, a fear that, unless we do so, the church folks will get together and knife us at the polls; and—well you know we all want to come back, and we can’t afford to take any risks. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.16
Do you think it will pass the House? AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.17
Yes; and the Senate, too. We are all in the same boat. I am sorry for those in charge of the Fair; but self-preservation in the first law of nature, and that is all there is about it. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.18
The republic from a religious standpoint, of the “reforms” demanded do not necessarily enter into this question at all. The government is interdicted both by the Constitution and by the higher law of natural right from legislating upon such subjects. In the very nature of the case, being accountable to God for the deeds done in the body, we must be free from the cognizance of government in all things pertaining to our relation to God. “The framers of the Constitution,” said the House report already referred to, “recognized the eternal principle that man’s relation with his God is above human legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable. Reasoning was not necessary to establish this truth; we are conscious of it in our own bosoms. It is this consciousness which, in defiance of human laws, has sustained so many martyrs in tortures and in flames. They felt that their duty to God was superior to human enactments, and that man could exercise no authority over their consciences. It is an inborn principle which nothing can eradicate.” AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.19
But forgetting this truth,—forgetting that God has committed to men only civil authority,—that he commissions “the powers that be,” to exact only that which is due to Cesar, our author, and tens of thousands who hold similar views, cease not to plot for the overthrow of religious liberty by making the State not only the guardian of civil rights but of private morals, thus clothing the government with power not only to define and guarantee natural rights, but to interpret and enforce the divine law! Such should remember the language of the Senate report, previously referred to, that “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.” AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.20
We declare, in the language of the Presbyterians, Baptists and Quakers, of Virginia, in 1776, that it is “impossible for the magistrate [civil government] to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects which profess the Christian faith, without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would lead us back to the Church of Rome.” AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.21
These so-called reformers may be honest in their purpose; they doubtless imagine that they are doing God service, but they are none the less aiming deadly blows at the vitals of American manhood and womanhood, and assaulting the very citadel of civil and religious liberty. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.22
ATJ
“A VERY familiar objection to the National Reform movement,” says the Christian Statesman, of Dec. 14, 1895, is, “Put God and Christ and the Bible into the hearts of the people, and there will be no necessity for the proposed Christian amendment of the Constitution.” “This,” says the Statesman, “raises the question as to the practical character of the National Reform movement.” AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.1
The Statesman attempts to answer the question by the following:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.2
The first thing to be noticed is that it is an effort to secure the acceptance, by every man, of God as the source of all authority, of Jesus Christ as the king in every relation of life including the political, and of the Bible as the supreme rule of conduct everywhere. In other words, it is an effort to secure at least all that the objector says ought to be secured in order to the purifying of the political pool. But the practical reformer is ... met by the astounding fact that many of ... and the Bible in their hearts are ring leaders in political corruption. And a little investigation reveals the fact that they do not consider themselves bound by moral restraints in the political sphere. They have accepted God, Christ and the Bible for deliverance from condemnation in the next world, and probably for the regulation of political conduct. From the political sphere divine authority and law are ruled out. The National Reform movement aims to supplement the work that has been done in putting Christ and his law in the hearts for salvation in the next world, by putting into the heart respect for divine authority and law in the sphere of politics. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.3
It is an effort to drive out of men’s hearts the secular theory of politics and to teach men that they must accept of God as supreme in the political sphere, of Christ as their ruler in politics, and of the divine will as of supreme authority in all political matters. This is practical reform work of the most fundamental and necessary kind. There never will be thorough and permanent reform so long as men act on the secular theory of politics, which practically and theoretically denies accountability to God for acts performed in the political sphere. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.4
To secure the recognition, by every citizen, of God as the supreme ruler, and of his right as Creator of all things, would be a most worthy motive in any work. But God cares only for such a recognition and acknowledgment of his claims as is prompted by love. “God is love;” and whatsoever is not of love is not from him. He speaks of sacrifices and offerings to him not prompted by love, as “an abomination,” and “a smoke in my nose.” Proverbs 28:9; Isaiah 65:3-5. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.5
There is one way of securing from men a recognition of God’s claims, which is acceptable to him; and that is by the conversion of the heart, through the power of the gospel of his Son. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.6
But does the Statesman advocate this means for securing the recognition of God which it demands? No; it is continually calling for legislation, to compel men to do that which in their hearts they do not want to do. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.7
“The practical reformer,” it tells us, “is often met by the astounding fact that many of those who profess to have God and Christ, and the Bible in their hearts, are ring-leaders in political corruption.” The writer of this talks like some innocent youth just getting his eyes opened to the depravity of human nature. There is no more common class of people in the world than hypocrites; and one great fault of the “National Reform” scheme is that by making a profession of religion a necessary qualification for office, and a thing demanded of all by “the law,” it would place a premium upon hypocrisy which would make it an infinitely greater evil than it is. AMS January 16, 1896, page 18.8
The Statesman speaks as though it were possible for an individual to be a Christian in those relations of life pertaining to church affairs, and a worldling in other relations, at the same time. “The National Reform movement,” it says, “aims to supplement the work that has been done by putting Christ and his law in the heart for salvation in the next world, by putting into the heart respect for divine authority and law in the sphere of politics.” AMS January 16, 1896, page 19.1
But the person who professes to have Christ and his law in his heart for salvation in the next world, and yet does not conduct himself harmoniously with that profession in matters relating to civil government, is a hypocrite, and his profession of Christ is a sham. And this sham the “reform” scheme would “supplement” by a corresponding sham “in the sphere of politics.” Only, in that sphere it would be infinitely worse than when confined to the sphere of private life, since it would work injury not only to the interests of one person, but to the rights of many others. AMS January 16, 1896, page 19.2
The “National Reform” scheme assumes that were all our rulers and legislators Christians they would at once have laws enacted compelling all persons to recognize the sovereignty of God, and the binding obligation of his law. But this is exactly what, in such a case, we should not have; for a Christian is one who is like Christ, and Christ, though having legions of angels at his call, never once sought to convert anybody by force, or to secure recognition of himself or his Father by such means. AMS January 16, 1896, page 19.3
The “reform” scheme is in fact nothing less than an effort to overturn the Republic of the United States, and set up in its place a man-made theocracy, with these “reformers” as it self appointed rulers; since it is wholly at variance with the idea of a government by representatives. Power can be delegated by one person to another, but morality cannot be. Morally, one person cannot represent another; he can represent only himself. It is certain that man is a free moral agent; and this being true, it is equally certain that moral action cannot be performed by one person as the representative of another. To be the moral representative of another would involve nothing less than the “mystery of godliness” made manifest in the gospel of Christ,—that mystery by which the sinner can be crucified with Christ, and created new in him. Man has and can have but one Saviour. The righteousness of Jesus Christ, and him only, can be made the righteousness of individuals on this earth. AMS January 16, 1896, page 19.4
The members of Congress, or of the State legislatures, hold in their hands the power delegated to them by the people, and acting within the limits of that delegated power, represent the people themselves; but they hold no moral power or accountability belonging to the people. Such power the people cannot delegate, any more than they can give up their free moral agency. No such transaction would be rcognized [sic.] by the Creator, for he will reward or punish every individual at the final day for his own deeds. In the scheme of “Christian” government, therefore which these “reformers” hope to realize, there will be in the place of the proper representatives of the people, certain persons who assume to recognize the authority of God and to execute his will for the individuals whom they govern. This usurpation of power and authority is involved in any attempt at a governmental recognition of God and conformity to his standard of morality. AMS January 16, 1896, page 19.5
In fact, the “National Reform” scheme of government does not admit that civil governments are established by the people, but declares them to be creatures of God; so that only those whom God chooses can rightfully fill the positions of governmental authority. These positions would of course, necessarily be filled by some persons; and it would rest with the “reformers” and their religious associates, as being the ones presumably most closely in touch with the divine will, to determine through what individuals the will of Christ, that is, their idea of his will, should be governmentally carried out. And what would be more natural and fitting in such a scheme than that they should appoint themselves to the offices pertaining to their theocracy? AMS January 16, 1896, page 19.6
A civil government is not “godless” which does not recognize God and attempt to carry out the requirements of the moral law; for the reason that any such attempt by civil government would be but an effort to do that which it is not constituted to do, and which it could not claim to do without asserting what is false. A government which would, in the name of the people, profess an allegiance to God which only a part of the people believed in or acknowledged, and would, as the act of the people, do that which only a part of the people would think of doing, by way of carrying out its conception of the will of Christ, would be a godless government indeed. A government which would compel its citizens by legislation to profess to recognize God and to observe the requirements of his moral law, would be utterly godless. But that government which leaves all its citizens free, as the Creator has left them, either to recognize God or not, and to conform to his requirements or not, is a government in harmony with the purpose of the gospel, and with God’s will concerning government as it must exist in this fallen world. AMS January 16, 1896, page 19.7
ATJ
NO text of the Sacred Scriptures is more misinterpreted and misunderstood than Romans 13:1. God never ordained injustice and oppression. Except in the nation of Israel, it is not, and never has been, personal sovereigns in themselves that have been referred to in the statement that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” Is it not the persons that be in power, but the powers that be in the person, that are ordained of God. The inquiry of Romans 13:3 is not, “Wilt thou then not be afraid of the persons?” but it is “Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?” It is the powers and not the person or persons by whom the power is exercised, that is under consideration. God has ordained civil power for the administration of justice, and when those entrusted with the administration of that power are guilty of injustice and oppression they are guilty of usurpation. Having exceeded the limits of their God-ordained power they are in that usurpation no more the ministers of God than is the Christian minister the representative of Christ when he usurps and attempts to wield authority not given by the gospel commission. AMS January 16, 1896, page 24.1
IN their appeal to the Home Secretary, published in these columns two weeks ago, among other things, the directors of the International Tract Society, Limited, of London, very properly said:— AMS January 16, 1896, page 24.2
We have felt it not disrespectful to address you this note of remonstrance against the action of a law by which the work of our factory is stopped and our factory employés deprived of this means of earning a livelihood. AMS January 16, 1896, page 24.3
All just governments are instituted for the purpose of securing human rights. “The powers that be are ordained of God” for this very purpose; “they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing;” and Christians are entitled to share the benefits, the protection of government, equally with unbelievers. “I exhort, therefore,” writes the apostle, “that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” 1 Timothy 2:1, 2. AMS January 16, 1896, page 24.4
Such being the purpose for which governments are ordained, and Christians being entitled to share the benefits, what could be more fitting than the act of the International Tract Society to the fact that the Factory Act, instead of protecting certain of the employés of the society, actually deprived them of the means of earning a livelihood! Fanaticism might have said, “We need not concern ourselves about our rights; God will protect us;” just as fanaticism has in some instances said, We need not work; God will feed us; and, We need not use remedies; God will heal us. But true faith uses rather the means that God has ordained for the securing of rights, the providing of food, and for the care of the body, asking his blessing the while upon the efforts put forth in his fear and for his glory. AMS January 16, 1896, page 24.5
The point made by the International Tract Society that the operation of the so-called Factory Act infringed the rights of its employés is well taken and is a credit both to the piety and the sagacity of its directors. AMS January 16, 1896, page 24.6