Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    April 1, 1884

    “Another Fallacy” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 61, 14, pp. 209, 210.

    BY ALONZO T. JONES

    THE fifth resolution of the Cleveland National Reform Convention reads: “Resolved, That we re-affirm that this religious amendment, instead of infringing on any individual’s right of conscience, or tending in the least degree to a union of church and State, will afford the fullest security against a corrupting church establishment, and form the strongest safeguard of both the civil and religious liberties of all citizens.” It is apparently necessary for that party to constantly “re-affirm” that this movement does not tend to a union of church and State; for as their actions and writings all betray that very tendency, a blind must be kept up by each convention re-affirming that it does not so tend.ARSH April 1, 1884, page 209.1

    Mr. W. J. Coleman, one of the chief speakers in the movement, in explaining to “Truth Seeker” the changes that will have to be made in the existing Constitution when the proposed amendment shall have been adopted, says: “The first sentence of Article I. of Amendments reads, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ This would be made consistent with the proposed amendment by substituting the words ‘a church’ for ‘religion,’ making it read, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a church.’ This is what the Reform Association believes should be the rule in a rightly constituted State. There should be religion, but no church.”ARSH April 1, 1884, page 209.2

    Now it is a fact that, by that “very wholesome doctrine and one very full of comfort,” of “unity in diversity,” those sects which used to be only warring factions, are now all recognized as “but parts of one stupendous whole.” What used to be the Presbyterian church, is now only the Presbyterian branch of the Christian church. That which once was the Methodist or Baptist church is now merely the Methodist or the Baptist branch of the church of Christ, or the one true church. And it is a subject of constant rejoicing to them that all the differences that once made them antagonists, are being accommodated, and that the one grand object of the “Unity of the Church” and its work is about to be realized. And even the Catholic church is not excluded, but is recognized by some of the leading religious papers of our land as a part of the true church, and is recognized by the Reform Association in its work (not in its theory) as an efficient helper. So then, if, as they claim, all these are but branches of the one church, of course it requires all of them to make up the church. And if it requires all of them to make up the Christian church, and the representative of Christianity in the earth, when they all unite, as they are doing, and all work to the one point of securing this religious amendment to the Constitution, and under it enforcing their united views, what is that but church and State?ARSH April 1, 1884, page 209.3

    Again, when this amendment shall have been adopted, and “Christian laws, institutions, and usages” become a part of the “supreme law of the land,” who is to interpret these “laws, institutions, and usages”? Will it not be this united body, in the capacity of a united body? And must not every “law, institution, and usage” be interpreted and enforced in harmony with the views of this united body? Let that party answer: “The churches and the pulpits have much to do with shaping and forming opinions on all moral questions, and with interpretations of Scripture on moral and civil, as well as on theological and ecclesiastical, points; and it is probable that in the almost universal gathering of our citizens about these, the chief discussions and the final decisions of most points will be developed there. Many nations shall come, and say, “Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for the law shall go forth of Zion.’” Again, “We will not allow the civil government to decide between them [the churches] and to ordain church doctrines, ordinances, and laws.”—Statesman, Feb. 21, 1884. Exactly; the united churches are “Zion”; “the law shall go forth of Zion;” “the final decision will be developed there”; and “WE will not allow the civil government,” etc. Therefore, if the civil government, out of a regard for pure justice and equity, should wish, as did the State of Pennsylvania, to regard the wishes of Sabbath-keepers, and to relieve them from the rigors of the Sunday law, “WE will not allow it,” say they. If that will not be church and State, then no such thing ever existed.ARSH April 1, 1884, page 209.4

    Again: they often quote that Scripture, “And gave Him to be head over all things to the church.” And the way in which they apply it, and the sense in which they use it, show plainly, in connection with the above, that when they get their views embodied in the supreme law of this land, they will use that law in the interests of the church. Claiming Him, in their sense, as head over all things to the church, when they succeed in placing their views, and themselves as the interpreters of those views, at the head of the nation, as his representatives, will they not then exert all the power of the nation in behalf of the church? Plainly, Yes; by their own words. And then we shall have an absolutely perfect image to the papal church.ARSH April 1, 1884, page 209.5

    The claims of the papacy never transcended the above. Christ was made head over all things to the church. The pope was his representative on the earth. Then why should he not use all the powers of earth in behalf of the church? Were not the “chief discussions” settled by the church? Were not the “final decisions developed there”? And when John Huss on his knees before the Emperor Sigismund, in presence of the Council of Constance, listened to the vindictive denunciation of the Bishop of Lodi against heresy, he felt comparatively safe as he held in his hand the pledged honor of the empire, in the form of a safe-conduct signed by the Emperor’s own hand. But when the Bishop turned to the powerful Emperor, and, while pointing to the kneeling saint, cried out, “Destroy this obstinate heretic,” poor Huss mentioned his safe-conduct, and its shameful violation, with his sad eyes turned appealingly upon the Emperor; and although Sigismund was deeply moved, Huss could receive no answer form him, except in the deep blush that overspread his face; then he knew that although he held the safe-conduct of the empire, and although the Emperor was disposed to let him go, yet the church held him, the Emperor, and the empire all in its cruel power, and that the church could say, “We will not allow the civil government to decide” in matters that concern the church. Where is the difference between the arrogance of the papal church not allowing the civil government to do thus and so, and the arrogance of the National Reformers saying that when they get the power “we will not allow the civil government” to do this or that? If that was church and State, why is not this the same? If that was the beast, what else will this be but the image to the beast? If persecution was there,ARSH April 1, 1884, page 209.6

    WILL THERE NOT BE PERSECUTION HERE

    Again let them answer. In the same article before quoted from Mr. Coleman, we read: “What effect would the adoption of the Christian amendment, together with the proposed changes of the Constitution, have upon those who deny that God is the sovereign, Christ the ruler, and the Bible the law? This brings up the conscience question at once.... The classes who would object are, as ‘Truth Seeker’ has said, Jews, infidels, atheists, et al. These classes are perfectly satisfied with the Constitution as it is. How would they stand toward it if it recognized the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ? To be perfectly plain, I believe that the existence of a Christian Constitution would disfranchise every logically consistent infidel.”—Christian Statesman, Nov. 1, 1883, page 4. Again J. C. K. Milligan, in Statesman of Feb. 21, 1884, page 5: “The worst result will be to disfranchise them.”ARSH April 1, 1884, page 210.1

    Now, on their own showing, this applies, not only to infidels and Jews, but to every one who does not acknowledge the sovereignty of God. But how is that acknowledgment to be made? Answer, By keeping Sunday. They say truly, “The keeping of the Sabbath is an acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of God over us.” Again they say, “Sunday is the Sabbath.” Therefore, if Sunday be the Sabbath, and the keeping of the Sabbath is an acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of God, then it inevitably follows that whosoever will not keep Sunday for Sabbath thereby denies the sovereignty of God, and therefore must be disfranchised. And there is to be no persecution! Is disfranchisement for opinion’s sake no persecution!! These men will embody their arbitrary views in the supreme law of the land; and to all who will not conform to those views they say, “If you obstinately adhere to your oppositioin to our ‘decisions’ as to what is Scripture, you shall not be burned, for that would be persecution; you shall not be hanged, for that would be persecution; you shall not be maimed, nor whipped, nor banished, for such would be persecution; and we will never persecute. Oh no! you shall not be persecuted, you shall not even pay a fine; you shall only be disfranchised. You shall simply be shut out from all situations in which you might exercise your talents with honor to yourself and advantage to your country. The floors of Congress, the halls of Legislation, the bench of Justice, shall not be occupied by such as you. You shall see other men, your inferiors in talents and acquired abilities, rise to the highest places and attract the admiration of multitudes, while ou are doomed to obscurity. You shall be doomed to lead the abject life of a Chinaman, in the midst of the great American people. All those high honors with which a free country decorates its illustrious citizens shall be to you objects, not of hope and virtuous emulation, but of hopeless pining. We will allow you to be educated, that you may the more feel your degradation. We will allow you to become educated, the more to stimulate your craving for that which you never may enjoy, but you shall not be persecuted.”ARSH April 1, 1884, page 210.2

    No persecution! What would a fine of thousands of dollars be? what would imprisonment be? what a scourging be? what would banishment for a year, or for two years, be, in comparison to this, the deprivation of my birthright to the most inestimable right of earth,—that for which thousands upon thousands of the human race have laid down their lives; that for which our fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor,—the right to be a citizen amongst a free people, and in this instance a citizen of the best government on the earth? And all this for what? Why, for not keeping Sunday for the Sabbath, in direct violation of the plainest reading of the law of God. And we are told this is “infringing on no individual’s rights of conscience;” “this is the strongest safeguard of both the civil and religious liberties of all.” If this be no infringements of the right of conscience, then there never has been such a thing in the world’s history. If this be the strongest safeguard of civil and religious liberty, then no man’s civil or religious liberty has ever been in danger in all this world. And if in all this there is no persecution, we would like exceedingly for these National Reform gentlemen to give us their definition of what persecution would be.ARSH April 1, 1884, page 210.3

    Again Mr. Coleman says (in the place before quoted), “If there be any Christian who objects to the proposed amendment on the gorund that it might touch the conscience of the infidel, it seems to me it would be in order to inquire whether he himself should not have some conscience in this matter.” So then, in this National Reform Christianity it is the perfection of conscientiousness to outrage some other man’s conscience. And the reverse of the Golden Rule is to them the law and the prophets. Their chief complaint is that the present Constitution disfranchises them (which is false), and therefore they must have it changed so that it will disfranchise every one but themselves.ARSH April 1, 1884, page 210.4

    And so, All things whatsoever ye woulod not that men should do to you, this do ye even so to them; for this is the law of National Reform.ARSH April 1, 1884, page 210.5

    Do we judge them harshly in this? Nay, verily. Witness the following: In the Statesman of Feb. 21, 1884, Mr. M. A. Gault, reporting a Convention at North Page, Iowa, says: “Rev. Mr. DOdds said he could not vote for it [the amendment] on the principle of the Golden Rule. He could not impose on the Jew or on Ingersoll a belief which he would not wish others to impose on him if he were in their place. Rev. Wm. Johnston followed, and with his incisive logic pulverized this objection. If we are, in government, to apply the Golden Rule without reference to any higher law,” etc., etc. “Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this!” A higher law than the Golden Rule!!! of which Christ says, It “is the law and the prophets,“—the sum of all duty. And these men have found a “higher law” than that sum of all. What “incisive logic” that must be, to be sure! And how infinitesimally it must “pulverize” every objection! And what can this “higher law” be? As they have not yet defined it, nor directed us to the statute, we are left to conjecture. And from a long and deep study of their writings, their speeches, and their ways and methods generally, I hesitate not to pronounce that this “higher law,” this law that transcends and sets aside the Golden Rule, that now “pulverizes” every objection in actions, is, The Success of the National Reform Party. Success is their summum bonum; their prima and ultima ratio. Success at the expense of all the accumulated experience of history. Success even at a cost as dear as that which was paid for the abolition of slavery. They care nothing for logic, consistency, human rights, civil and religious, nothing for Sacred Scripture itself, that stands in the way of their success. This “higher law” of success, with them supreme, necessarily takes precedence of all laws, rights, and rules, human or divine. And this is a specimen of their interpretation of “Christian laws, institutions, and usages,“—an interpretation which at the first step takes them clear beyond every Christian law, institution, or usage. If they will do this in simply reaching after power, what will they not do when they obtain that power? There will be literally no restraint upon them; for their “higher law” will justify them in anything that they may choose to do, in “pulverizing” objections, especially where it is the highest effort of their consciences to offend the consciences of others.ARSH April 1, 1884, page 210.6

    And because we distrust their movement, because we see the result of it when they shall have secured the power, they choose to think us possessed of a wonderful “compound of folly and fanaticism.” (See editorial comment in Statesman of Feb. 21, 1884.) But from their own words, fairly quoted in this article, we are justified in saying that the success of their movement will be a union of church and State, and that they will persecute.ARSH April 1, 1884, page 210.7

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents