ATJ
WE have before mentioned the fact that, on both sides, in the late political campaign, there was frequent mention made of the French Revolution. Each side charged the other with showing alarming characteristics of that notable period of history. AMS December 3, 1896, page 377.1
Last week in these columns we pointed out the most dangerous of all these characteristics that could possibly appear—the danger of an established religion professing to be Christianity. And though this greatest danger must, and will, be kept before the people, as it is the great and leading issue; yet there are others only less important, and that contribute to the success of this greatest of all, which must be point out, and which must be avoided by all who would escape the vortex toward which these things are certainly tending. AMS December 3, 1896, page 377.2
Only less remarkable than the national atheism that was developed in the French Revolution, was the development of a one-man power. As Napoleon was “returning from Notre Dame, after the ceremonies which had marked the conclusion of the Concordat,” he exclaimed, “Now the French Revolution is finished.” Napoleon could see plainly enough that he was the logical result of at least one series of events. And the situation that found its logical result in a Napoleon in France a hundred years ago, has to-day, in the United States, its counterpart in more than one of itsphases. AMS December 3, 1896, page 377.3
This is evident from the fact that it was apparent to both sides, and was much emphasized in the discussions by the leaders, in the late campaign. Nor was this seen only by men in this country. It was seen and pointedly commented on by French thinkers also. Just before the National Conventions were held, the Paris Figaro, remarking upon the issues that were prominent in the campaign, said:— AMS December 3, 1896, page 377.4
“Are the Americans in quest of a Napoleon? Are they moving in the direction of a dictatorship, the precursor of demagogic or military despotism? In the case of a people which hitherto has made it a point of honor to renovate, and not to follow, history’s general laws, this would certainly be an unexpected yet possible evolution.” AMS December 3, 1896, page 377.5
Certainly if any are qualified to discern such symptoms, the French are the ones. To those thinkers the issues involved in the French Revolution are as familiar as are those of the American Revolution to American thinkers. And when these men, being to-day upon the very spot and among the memorials of the French Revolution, can look across the ocean and at such a distance see that which causes them with interest to ask, “Are the American in quest of a Napoleon? Are they moving in the direction of a dictatorship, the precursor of demagogic or military despotism?” surely it is time for the people of this country to ask themselves whether they had not better begin seriously to consider the situation. AMS December 3, 1896, page 377.6
Nor is it symptoms that suggest the French Revolution alone, that this writer sees here: he sees also that which is suggestive of the course of the republic of ancient Rome. Upon this he remarks that “if America like to indulge in the luxury of passing in a century and a half at most through all the stages to be found in the history of Rome, that is her affair;” and notes “the Cesarian tendencies which have shown themselves too often in the United States during the last thirty years.” AMS December 3, 1896, page 377.7
Thus it is apparent that, from the examples of France and Rome, the one thing that strikes the attention of this writer, in studying the conditions in the United States, is the development of a one-man power. Thinkers, both writers and speakers, at home here, have called attention to the same thing. Indeed, it is strange that there should be anybody who thinks so little as not to be able to see it. AMS December 3, 1896, page 377.8
Looked at on strictly the civil side, the one great question at issue in France and Rome, at these crises in their history, was the question of “Capital and Labor,” precisely as now in strictly the civil aspect this is the one great q uestion in the United States. In France one hundred years ago, there were vast aggregations of capital, the power which it gave being used only to crush out all competition and all idea of competition, and the wealth itself being used only to satisfy the extravagant and inventive genius of idle luxury; precisely as in the United States to-day. AMS December 3, 1896, page 377.9
On the other hand, and against the aggregations of capital, were vast aggregations of labor, bent on gaining power by which there should be assured a more equable distribution of the good things of life that were monopolized by the few; precisely as there is in the United States to-day. AMS December 3, 1896, page 377.10
This condition of things produced in Rome a one-man power—Cesar. The like condition produced in France a one-man power—Napoleon. And now in the United States, the condition like to both that have gone before, as certainly as it shall be continued, can produce nothing less here than it produced in both instances before. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.1
Indeed the elements at work to-day on both sides of this question, are themselves systematically developing a one-man power, and as systematically training men into ready submission to such power. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.2
In the great business “Trusts” that are formed, men who individually have built up a successful business, deliberately surrender into the hands of the “Trust” their whole business and all their interests in that business, and shut down or start up only as the management of the “Trust” directs. However much the actual owner of the business may desire to go on with it, he cannot do so unless the manager of the “Trust” orders it. Thus it is in many of the leading businesses all over the land. And thus thousands of men all over the land have sold themselves, and are still selling themselves, to a one-man power; and are systematically training themselves into subjection to a one-man power. Only let the day come when a combination of these “Trust” interests shall have one of their number at the head of the government, and the country will find itself too, sold to a one-man power. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.3
On the other hand, there are the great federations and Confederations of Labor, formed to oppose the “tyranny” of the federations and Confederations of Capital; but which themselves are only so many “Trusts” of another sort. Workingmen of every trade and occupation band themselves together and deliberately surrender into the hands of the president and the walking delegate the whole of their individuality. Their managers may sit in their offices in New York, Cleveland, Chicago, or wherever they may be, and send by telegraph a single word; and whether it be at midday or midnight, throughout half the country men will drop their tools and walk away from their work. Individually they may have no sort of grievance; their own personal choice would be to continue work; but the word has come from one man, the chief, whom personally they may not know, and may never even have seen; and though they may not know why, yet the word has come and they quit work and walk away to spend days, or weeks, or months, in absolute idleness, and they and their families in want. How would it be possible more plainly to show the insidious growth of a one-man power? Thus multitudes of people all over the land have sold themselves, and are still selling themselves, to the dictates of a one-man power; and are systematically training themselves into unquestioning subjection to a one-man power. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.4
And have there not been sufficient illustrations of this to awaken the country to the imminent danger of it? In 1894 one man sat in Chicago and so suspended traffic and transportation over all the country from Lake Erie to the Pacific, that governors of “sovereign States” considered it necessary obsequiously to solicit that they be permitted by this one man, a private individual, in Chicago, to journey on official business within their own States. Only let the day come when one of these chiefs, or one representing the same interests, shall be placed at the head of the government; is there room for doubt that the nation would find itself under a one-man power? AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.5
The religious elements of the country are also, both by doctrine and by practice, being systematically trained into the same thing. They are continually trained in the pernicious theory that they must control the government. They are continually trained in the despotic doctrine that governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; but from “the will of God,” with themselves as the divinely-appointed expositors of that “will.” And in the practice of this pernicious theory, and this despotic doctrine, in the endeavor to take possession of the government, they are systematically training themselves into ready and unquestioning subjection to a one-man power. Only let the day come when one of these managers, or one devoted to their interests, shall be placed at the head of the government, and the country will find itself under the domination of a one-man power. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.6
Take then the element of the aggregations of Capital, and the element of the aggregations of Labor against the aggregations of Capital, and the element of the aggregation of religious but earthly power—these three elements embrace the vast majority of the people of the United States. And when, as is the undeniable fact, these three elements are systematically training into blind submission to a one-man power, themselves and all whom they can influence, how long can it possibly be before the nation shall certainly fall under the domination of a one-man power? AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.7
This is not to say that these three elements will united to bring the country under a one-man power. It is only to call attention to the open prospect, that whichever of the three shall win, in the struggle for possession of the national power, the country must certainly fall under the domination of a one-man power. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.8
We have not space this week to discuss this question in other important bearings. Besides, what has been said is enough to contemplate for a week. It will not do to pass this off with a “pooh-pooh.” The situation may indeed be not exactly pleasant for you to contemplate, but there is no denying that this is a fair presentation of the situation as it really is before this country. And the situation as it is, calls just now for serious thinking. To pass it off without this serious thinking, is only surely to hasten the coming of such a condition of things as will compel serious thinking. It will be better to give the subject the serious thought that it demands, before it be too late. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.9
Neither is there space now fully to point out the only safe course to take both for yourself and for the country. We can here cite but one admonition that the Lord gives to all for this time: “The Lord spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary.” Isaiah 8:11-13. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.10
ATJ
THE American theory of popular government, upon which the laws and institutions of the United States have rested since the nation’s birth, has been openly repudiated from the pulpit by a prominent Brooklyn clergyman, the Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott, successor of Henry Ward Beecher. Not only did Mr. Abbott announce to his congregation his own repudiation of this theory, but he also announced that it had been repudiated by the American people. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.1
It is well known that Dr. Abbott long ago repudiated the Bible, for he has been for years one of the foremost of the expounders and defenders of the doctrine of Evolution. It need not be thought strange, therefore, that he should repudiate the only theory of government which rests upon Scriptural grounds. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.2
The theory that “government rested on the consent of the governed,” said Mr. Abbott, “was founded upon the proposition advanced by Rousseau that all men were born free and had surrendered their rights for the good of government.” In this Mr. Abbott takes issue with the framers of the Declaration of Independence, who said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; ... that to protect these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” We believe these truths are still self-evident to every unbiased mind. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.3
“When we, with muskets,” said Mr. Abbott, “faced the rioters at Chicago, who demanded that we should govern them only with their consent—that was America’s answer to the declaration that government rests on the consent of the governed.” If it was, then America should obliterate every tribute which she has paid to the memory of the men who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence; since, according to this, they were the defenders and promoters of riot! But this is not the first time these noble men have been slandered in the name of religion. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.4
These statements, however, only led up to the crowning assertion of the discourse, which was that “The right of a majority in a democracy is to enforce divine law; that is all.” That is the kind of government this Brooklyn clergyman would have in the place of government by the consent of the governed; and, sad to say, a multitude of other preachers believe in this substitution, and are doing their utmost to make it an accomplished fact. They are at the head of a mighty movement of religious forces in this land whose avowed aim is to substitute for the “godless” government we now have, one which will “enforce divine law.” AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.5
By this theory, the majority have the right to enforce divine law. The minority, therefore, have no rights at all; for of course the majority must control the government; and they must “enforce the divine law.” It will of necessity rest with them to decide what the divine law is. A decision must be made on this point, for there is no general agreement among men as to what the divine law includes, or what it commands. It is true, the divine law is stated in the Scripture; but there is almost nothing over which men are so universally divided as the meaning of Scripture. And besides this, the Scripture tells us that the divine law is spiritual, and that spiritual truths must be spiritually discerned. To be spiritually minded, not politically minded, is what is required at the very start in order to know what the divine law means. AMS December 3, 1896, page 378.6
This, however, will not greatly interfere with the action of the political majority. Almost any person is able to tell what the law of God means—to his own satisfaction; and “the majority” will no doubt be able to decide upon its meaning to their own satisfaction, at least sufficiently to enable the machinery of this “divine” government to be set in motion. The world has had “Christian” governments in the past—governments that have denied that they received any powers from the consent of the governed—and kings, emperors, and others who have stood at the head of such governments have never shown much hesitancy in deciding what the government must do to carry out the will of God. If they could not decide themselves they could inquire of the pope, and the governing majority might do the same to-day! AMS December 3, 1896, page 379.1
The minority in the government must, of course, submit to the will of the majority. Not to do so would be anarchy. The public—or governmental—“conscience” will then be the only moral monitor needed. Obedience to the government will be obedience to the divine law, and the individual conscience will find its occupation gone. The minority will secure salvation simply by obedience to the majority, for the majority will “enforce the divine law.” This arrangement dispenses with the necessity for faith, or for Bible study, at least on the part of the minority. This accords exactly with the Christian Endeavor view that “The only preparation for the lofty privileges of the heavenly, is conspicuous and persevering fidelity in the fulfillment of the duties pertaining to our earthly citizenship.” AMS December 3, 1896, page 379.2
And this is just what is presented to the world in the papacy. The papist does not need the Bible, for does he not have the priest to tell him what is right? And the priest has the prelate to instruct him, and these in turn have the pope, who is infallible! These represent the “majority” who govern the “minority”—the common people—under the papal system. Small wonder that under it there is no need felt, and little seen, of the word of God and faith. And that this scheme of government by the enforcement of “divine law” presents the same features, is proof of its essentially papal character. AMS December 3, 1896, page 379.3
ATJ
NOW that in the interests of a religious despotism the Declaration of Independence is openly attacked, it is well to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln as to the merit of that document and the meaning of those who framed it, spoken when it was attacked in the interests of the civil despotism of slavery. AMS December 3, 1896, page 379.1
He said that by the Declaration its framers “meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and referred to by all, constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and, even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life of all people of all color everywhere.... Its authors meant it to be, as, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to all those who, in after time, might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack. AMS December 3, 1896, page 379.2
“In those days our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro [and now the bondage of the consciences of all—EDITOR SENTINEL] universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it.” AMS December 3, 1896, page 379.3
It is well for the American people to know, and forever to bear in mind, that the Declaration of Independence can never be assailed, or sneered at, or hawked at, except in the endeavor to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. AMS December 3, 1896, page 379.4
ATJ
IT is a fact which should furnish food for serious thought to those church members who are trying to reform the world by law, that the world is able to discern a reform which is most imperatively needed within the church. The church says that immorality is increasing alarmingly in the world, and that there must be legislation to stop it. The world in turn, points to a condition of things in the church which may with good reason be regarded as the chief cause of the downward trend in the world. AMS December 3, 1896, page 380.1
The greatest reformation that is needed to-day is in the church. Among those who realize this fact is the well-known evangelist, D. L. Moody, who for some time past has been conducting revival meetings for church members in New York City. Mr. Moody’s effort drew forth some pertinent comments from the New York Journal of November 17. The Journal noted that the mission of the evangelist was “not to those who are sunk in poverty as well as sin, but to the congregations of the various evangelical denominations,” and proceeded to observe that “the weakness of the class to whom Mr. Moody comes as a quickening preacher is a tendency to seek respectability rather than righteousness—to form their conduct not so much on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as on the traditions of their sects and the example of those around them. Hence it comes about that the atmosphere of a church is too often repellant to the sort of sinners who stand in greatest need of salvation, and of human help to lift them from the misery into which their ignorance, their passions or their vices, or all combined, have plunged them.” AMS December 3, 1896, page 380.2
Respectability is not righteousness. Respectability is worldliness, and from the Christian standpoint, worldliness of the most dangerous type, since it can be made the counterfeit of righteousness. And this worldliness is in the church. AMS December 3, 1896, page 380.3
“If Mr. Moody,” the Journal continued, “will tell his Christian listeners that severe respectability—as manifested in a disinclination to touch elbows with coats that are not of good cut, and repugnance to meeting on a cordial footing those who are not above a certain caste—gives point to the assertion so frequently made that the average city church is not much else than a social club for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the contributing members, he may broaden the minds and widen the sympathies of many excellent people who expect to be as well placed in the next world as they are in this.” AMS December 3, 1896, page 380.4
The class of people for whom Sunday laws are particularly designed, are repelled from the church by the Pharisaical atmosphere which pervades it, and religious zealots now seek by legislation to drive the unchurched masses into this repulsive atmosphere. AMS December 3, 1896, page 380.5
What is needed is not that the people should be driven into the church in its present state, but that the Phariseeism within it should be driven out, by the straightforward preaching of that living Word which is sharper than a two-edged sword. AMS December 3, 1896, page 380.6
The Journal belongs to that “ungodly class of papers which issue a Sunday edition; yet it can see and state clearly enough what is the matter with the church. “More warmth of heart, less fear of criticism, closer study of the Bible; more attention to the precepts of the sermon on the mount, and less to church custom; a real recognition of the essential brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women, whether they be respectable or the reverse; and a genuine desire to model their lives as near as may be on that of Jesus, who was no aristocrat—if Mr. Moody will preach thus to the brethren and sisters who flock to his meetings, he may kindle a fire of godly zeal in this sin-suffering metropolis. And we trust that before the evangelist concludes his labors here he will explain to the churches fully why it is that, as they so loudly complain, they have lost their hold on the masses. Above all, it is to be desired that he will not neglect to give some sound advice to the preachers. They need it. Too many of them are worldly minded, and not a few of them are more ardent for the success of their political party than they are for the spread of Christ’s gospel.” AMS December 3, 1896, page 380.7
And it is the very class of preachers described in the concluding lines of this quotation, that are most forward in the demand for Sunday legislation. They are the men who are endeavoring to make Christianity succeed by political means. AMS December 3, 1896, page 380.8
The church is in no position to take offense if the world should quote to her the proverb, “Physician, heal thyself.” “First cast out the beam that is in thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” With the worldliness removed from the church, the church will see clearly that legislation is not the proper remedy to cure the immorality that is in the world. AMS December 3, 1896, page 380.9