THERE could be no worse exhibition of taking God’s name in vain than that of parading it in the constitution of a civil government.AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.5

IT does not take very much to convince the man who wants legislation to regulate the religion of the country, that he is a successor of the prophets.AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.6

BECAUSE it would be a great gain if the people would all do right, it does not follow that anything would be gained by making laws to compel them to do right.AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.7

IN religion God is the governor, and there can rightfully be no other. How then can a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” rightfully concern itself with religion?AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.8

IF it be true that “figures won’t lie,” how is it that the apostles of “Christian Citizenship” figure that the saints in this evil world are going to be able to outvote the sinners?AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.9

DO you want your own religious practice to be regulated by a state or national legislature? And if not, are you willing that such regulation should be imposed upon your neighbor?AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.10

THERE is a great struggle among the various classes in this country to-day, religious and otherwise, to monopolize the application of that phrase of the Constitution which reads, “We, the people of the United States.”AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.11

“To Preserve the Earth” American Sentinel 13, 9, pp. 129, 130.

ATJ

“YE are the salt of the earth.” So said Jesus Christ to his followers, and the words remain true of his followers to-day. That is to say, the followers of Christ—Christians—are the preservers of the earth.AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.1

They are the preservers of the earth because they are Christians. And Christians are not of this earth, but have been “born from above.” They are in the world, but not of the world. They have been “called out” from that which is of the world. Christ has chosen them out of the world, and the world recognizes this fact by hating them. John 15:19.AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.2

Christians therefore are the preservers of the world by being unlike the world. They are the “salt of the earth” by being unlike the world in which they are, even as salt is unlike that in which it is placed.AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.3

But to this statement that Christians are the salt of the earth, the Saviour added: “but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” Matthew 5:13.AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.4

If the salt loses its taste, so that its presence in the food cannot be distinguished, it is good for nothing; it will neither season anything nor preserve it. And if Christians, in the world, become conformed to the world, they are good for nothing as preservers of the world.AMS March 3, 1898, page 129.5

And now for years it has stood forth as a fact before all the people, and one becoming ever more prominent, that those who profess to be follower of Christ, the members of the churches, are combining into organizations to work by political methods for the salvation of the state. Through methods which are of the world, and in the use of which they must be identified with the world, they propose to work for the preservation of the world.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.1

While the Word of God which they profess to believe says that the world is preserved only by that which is unlike the world, they propose to preserve it only by that which is like the world.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.2

It is perfectly plain, therefore, that as certainly as the words of Christ are true, the Christians Citizenship and kindred organizations who are working to get control of the popular ballot and to shape legislation, for the preservation of the state, in these very things are working directly for the destruction of the state. In just so far as they make use of these methods they become identified with the world and lose their identity as Christians; for as Christians, they are to pursue methods of work for the uplifting of mankind which rest not upon the power and wisdom of man, but of God; not upon the power of law, but of love.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.3

Why cannot Christians see that in their Christianity—their separation from the world, their nonconformity to it, their very lack of identity with it in anything—lies the only guaranty of the world’s preservation?AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.4

“Bible Study with the ‘Christian Citizen’” American Sentinel 13, 9, p. 130.

ATJ

BEFORE Israel entered the land of Canaan the Lord said of them, “Lo the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.” Numbers 23:9.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.1

This said to them as plainly as it was possible to say that they, God’s people, were not to be formed into a nation, a state, kingdom, or government, as were the nations round. They were to “dwell alone,” a distinct and separate people, individually and collectively, in character and in government.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.2

However, after they had entered that land and dwelt awhile there, they set their hearts on having a king, a state, a goverment, like all the nations. Therefore they said to Samuel, “Make us a king, like all the nations.” This greatly displeased the prophet, and he prayed unto the Lord.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.3

But the Lord said to Samuel, “They have not rejected thee; but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them.” “Now therefore hearken unto their voice; howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them.” “Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us: that we may be like all the nations.”AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.4

For Israel then to have any other king than God; for them to have any government than that of God; was to reject God. It was sheer apostasy. Of course Israel then did not believe it, and professed Israel now will not believe it. Yet the Lord said it; and it was true then and it is true now.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.5

Israel was then the church. When they formed themselves into a state, that was a positive union of church and state. And when the church to-day form themselves into the state, or into a part of the state, that is also a positive union of church and state.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.6

Perhaps the Christian Citizen will insist that there was not a union of church and state in Israel when the same identical individuals were members of both! This is its plea on such a condition in the United States; why will not the plea hold good on the same condition in ancient Israel?AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.7

The simple truth is that Israel had been called out of Egypt, separated from the nations, and formed into the church. And it was simply impossible for them to form, or have any connection with, any state, without in that very thing forming a union of church and state. It was impossible for any individual to do so without forming so far a union of church and state.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.8

And still God is calling his sons “out of Egypt,” separating them from the nations, and forming them into his church. And still it is impossible for these to have active connection with any state without in that very thing forming a union of church and state. It is impossible for any individual church member to have active connection with any state without so far and in himself forming a union of church and state.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.9

The whole history of Israel, the whole history of the church in the Bible as well as out, the whole Bible itself demonstrates that this is everlastingly the truth.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.10

For the professed people of God to interfere in the politics and affairs of the nations and attempt to decide these matters and to “run things,” is to say to all people that the government of God is not enough for then; but they must make and run one of their own. They certify that the laws of God are not enough for them; but they must make a set of their own. It is only to say that the government, the kingdom, of God is not perfect, and that therefore its laws are not sufficient for them.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.11

Of course all this is a clear repudiation of God as King, Governor, and Lawgiver; and a putting of their own selves in his place as all these.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.12

Against the solemn protest of God ancient Israel did set them up a kingdom like all the nations. And the logical result was complete destruction.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.13

Against the plain word and the same solemn protest of the Lord, the professed church of to-day persist in doing the same thing, And nothing can come of it yet but complete destruction.AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.14

So far as these “Christian citizen” folks are concerned, why was the Word of God written? What good are its lessons and warnings to them? “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?”AMS March 3, 1898, page 130.15

A. T. J.

“The Papacy Asking State Aid” American Sentinel 13, 9, pp. 133, 134.

ATJ

IN no wise abashed by the rising sentiment against state aid to sectarianism, as seen in the attitude of Protestant churches and in decisions of the courts, the papal authorities in this country continue to ask for Government aid for their sectarian schools.AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.1

The latest instance of this of which we have notice is a plea made by Archbishop Ryan, before a committee of U. S. Senators, on February 3 last. It has been the policy of the Government to gradually reduce the customary appropriations for these schools, and the archbishop asked that no further reduction be made in the amount appropriated for 1898.AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.2

He presented a number of arguments in support of his plea; but not one of them was based upon any principle of justice or free government. Of course, no such principle will support an argument of that nature. His arguments were based on policy purely, and from the standpoint of policy they were somewhat plausible.AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.3

But in government, as in other matters, “honesty is the best policy,” always. Let the Government be honest with the people’s money.AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.4

The archbishop touched at some length upon the subject of sectarianism, and his remarks upon this topic are interesting, if not convincing.AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.5

“This word sectarianism, gentlemen,” he said, “is the most thoroughly misunderstood, and at present perhaps the most mischievous word in the English language. Properly speaking, sectarianism is the religion of sects, that is, of bodies cut away—as the term implies—from the original church. Unsectarian religion is the religion of that original church. But this is not the meaning popularly attached to it. Webster defines as sectarian ‘one of a party in religion which has separated itself from an established church or which holds tenets different from those of the prevailing denomination.’ Now as we have no established church, for union of church and state in our circumstances is out of the question, and there is a dispute as to which is the ‘prevailing denomination,’ a ‘sectarian’ is not easy to find. For a man to preach unsectarianism it is supposed that he must avoid all doctrines in which he may disagree with any one of his audience. Now as every doctrine of Christians has been denied by some one, unsectarian preaching is simply impossible when the audience is representative of all shades of religious opinion. What is called unsectarian teaching is attempted in some of our public institutions by what are known as ‘moral instructors,’ but it is sometimes the most sectarian of all teaching, as it represents simply the peculiar religious views not of a body, but of the individual who teaches.”AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.6

“One can therefore easily see that what is so-called unsectarian religion is logically impossible; and even if it existed, could not practically affect individual morality.”AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.7

As regards the logical impossibility of unsectarian religious teaching, the archbishop’s remarks are sound. There is simply no religious body in the world to-day which must not, from the human standpoint, be regarded as a sect. And this being so, the archbishop’s definition of sectarianism is of no practical value. As the Memorial of the Baptists and Quakers to the legislature of Virginia, truthfully said, “It is ... impossible for the civil magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects professing Christian faith, without erecting a claim to infallibility.” It remains for God to reveal to the individual, by his Word and the Holy Spirit, what is the true religion,—the religion of the “original church.”AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.8

But as regards the appropriation of public money, it is not necessary to consider which is the original church and which of the religious bodies are sects; for it is not the province of civil government to give public funds to the original church any more than to a sectarian body. The principle upon which this fact rests is simply that it is not justice for the civil government to favor one party or class of the people at the expense of another class. This is a Government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and under it all classes must be treated alike. The believer must not be favored at the expense of the unbeliever. The latter must not be forced to contribute to the support of any religion, whether sectarian or otherwise.AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.9

A characteristic papal argument was presented by the archbishop in the following:—AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.10

“Gentlemen, we do not ask money from you to teach our religion, but to impart secular education, the value of which you can test by your own inspectors, as is done in Protestant England. If, in addition to this secular learning, we by the influence of religion make these Indian children purer and better now and more obedient to authority when they become men, will you reject our services simply because we teach the religion that has civilized the world?”AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.11

The chief quality of this paragraph is assumption. What religion is it that has “civilized the world”? Is it the Roman Catholic religion? or is it the Protestant religion? or the Jewish religion? Or has any religion done it? These are questions which cannot be settled by the word of an archbishop; nor is it the business of any committee of Congress to consider them. Congress has no more right to base an appropriation of public money upon the assumption that the papal religion has civilized the world, than it has to throw the people’s money into the sea. Congress has no business whatever to pronounce, either directly or indirectly, upon a religious question.AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.12

Will the papal religion, also, make the Indian children “purer and better” than they would be without it? This also is pure assumption, and one which many other people, both religious and otherwise, would deny. And that, as the archbishop stated, the papacy does not ask for state money to teach religion, but to impart secular education, is a piece of very thin sophistry. These Catholic Indian schools are religious schools, and were it not for the religion which is taught in them they would not exist at all. For a prelate of the Catholic Church—or for that matter, of any church—to claim that religion is not the main thing in the eye of the church, is simply absurd. Religion is that upon which the church depends for her very existence; it is the mainspring of all her action.AMS March 3, 1898, page 133.13

Anyone familiar with Catholic literature knows that “secular education,” apart from religion, is frequently denounced in it as being worse than no education at all. But if any person, despite all other proofs, were still inclined to regard Rome as the friend of secular education, he has but to look to those countries in which Rome rules, or has ruled until recently, to find evidence which will convince him if he is open to conviction. Where, outside of the wilds of central Africa, would one go to find ignorance and superstition so dense and presenting such an impassable barrier to right and reason, as in the priest-ridden districts of Ireland, Mexico, or South America? To any one familiar with geography, it is impossible to dissociate in the mind the mention of one of these countries from the thought of a land where the masses of the people spend their lives in ignorance, superstition, and poverty.AMS March 3, 1898, page 134.1

If the archbishop had presented a true statement of the case, he would have spoken like this: Gentlemen, unless the United States Government pays for the maintenance of our Catholic Indian schools, the church will have to maintain them herself. But the church does not want to do this. It is true they are church schools, wholly under the church’s direction and control, and in which the foremost consideration is to bring the pupils into the Catholic fold; but we would like the Government to stand the expense, while we reap the benefit. Remember, gentlemen, that it is the bounden duty of the Government to educate these “wards of the nation”—in the Catholic belief. So, gentlemen, I ask that you will kindly appropriate the people’s money for this purpose: and if this is against their will, let it be remembered that the people ought not to have any will that is contrary to the Catholic Church.AMS March 3, 1898, page 134.2

And besides, it is a settle principle of our belief that the state ought to support the church; and this principle, which by the way is a very important one, seems in danger of being discarded here in the matter of these Government appropriations. Hence I particularly ask that the same be continued undiminished to the Catholic schools, since each such appropriation is a recognition of this principle as being just and right.AMS March 3, 1898, page 134.3

And remember also, gentlemen of the committee, that it will cost considerably more to build and maintain Government schools for the Indians than it costs to maintain our church schools, since these are already built and employ teachers who, having devoted their lives to the church, work for religion’s sake and not for money. Therefore to proceed upon the principle of separation of church and state, will cost you thousands of dollars; and I ask you to consider, gentlemen, whether it will pay to revert to constitutional principles of government at the cost of so much money.AMS March 3, 1898, page 134.4

This is what truth would compel one to say, and substantially all that one could say, in asking state aid for the maintenance of sectarian schools. Such aid is simply a misappropriation of money,—a use of it never authorized by those to whom it belongs. The state in giving such aid does that which, in the case of a private individual, would be counted a crime to be punished by a term in jail. The papal authorities ask that the state shall continue to do this, notwithstanding it has begun the establishment of a contrary policy. The SENTINEL asks that the Government discontinue these misappriations [sic.] and adhere to the foundation principles of free government, at whatever cost in money. The right way will be the cheapest way in the end.AMS March 3, 1898, page 134.5

We note, however, the statement made editorially in the journal which reported the archbishop’s plea—the Catholic Standard and Times, of the 19th inst.—that “We have just learned that since his plea was delivered the Senate committee has decided to recommend an addition of ten per cent. to the appropriation already voted by the House.” This certainly justifies calling the attention of the American people to the subject as one of practical interest to them at this time.AMS March 3, 1898, page 134.6

February 24, 1898

March 10, 1898