REV. JUNIUS H. SEELYE, D. D., is President of Amherst College, one of the leading scholars and educators of the United States, and a Vice-President of the National Reform Association. In a late number of the Forum he discussed the question, “Should the State Teach Religion?” in which he presented the following as sound doctrine on that question:—AMS November 1886, page 83.1

“Religion is not an end to the State. It is simply a means to the advancement of the State, and is to be used like any other means. To the individual person the sole question about a religion is, whether it is true; but the State only inquires whether it is adapted to the end at which the State is aiming. From this point of view the State is equally preserved from religious indifference and religious intolerance. What kind of a religion it should employ, and how far it should carry religious instruction in its schools, is a grave question of statesmanship, respecting which Governments may very easily make mistakes—very grave mistakes... But the greatest mistake any Government is likely to commit respecting religious instruction is to have none. And faith for a people is better than no faith. What faith shall be employed, and in what way, are points respecting which wise statesmanship will direct, as it does in other matters; and wise statesmanship will keep in view here as elsewhere the maxim, de minimis non curat lex.... If the conscience of the subjects approve, well; if` not, the State will be cautious, but courageous also; and, if it is wise, it will not falter.”AMS November 1886, page 83.2

If a State is to adopt a religion at all, it is impossible to see how it could adopt any but the religion of the majority. Because, mark: the rule, the State is not to inquire whether the religion is true, but only, “whether it is adapted to the end at which the State is aiming.” Religion therefore being to the State a mere matter of policy, the religion adopted by the State must be the religion of the majority. And in that case the State is brought to the inevitable alternative, either to change its religion with every change of the majority, or else to exert its power to keep the religion which it has adopted, the religion of the majority. Wherefore it is a most curiously interesting problem to know just how that “from this point of view the State is equally preserved from religious indifference and from religious intolerance”? And further, if this rule be such a safe preservative, how happens it that of all the States that have been on this earth, that have acted upon the Professor’s theory, not one has been preserved from religious intolerance?AMS November 1886, page 83.3

The fact is, that under this theory, preservation from religious intolerance is impossible. The impossibility is inherent in the theory. Of this no better proof is needed than is furnished in President Seelye’s own words. He says, “To the individual person the sole question about a religion is whether it is true;” this is very properly said as to the individual, but to the State, whether a religion is true or not does not enter into the case. With the State the sole question concerning a religion is, Can it be used? Is it politic to adopt it? This at once sets the more policy of the State against the conscience of the individual, and this too upon the very point, and the only point, where conscience or principle is or can be involved. With the State the question is not one of conscience nor of principle, but of policy solely; while with the individual the question is solely one of conscience, and of principle. And when the State goes about to set itself thus against the individual upon a question, about the truth of which it is not to inquire at all but which is to be the solo inquiry of the individual, then says Mr. Seelye:—AMS November 1886, page 84.1

“What faith shall be employed, and in what way, are points respecting which wise statesmanship will direct, as it does in other matters, and wise statesmanship will keep in view here as elsewhere the maxim, the law cares not for the few.AMS November 1886, page 84.2

And then, as though to prevent all possibility of’ a misunderstanding of his doctrine, he adds:—AMS November 1886, page 84.3

“If the conscience of the subjects approve, well; if not, the State will be cautious, but courageous also; and if it is wise, it will not falter.”AMS November 1886, page 84.4

Was ever persecution or oppression for conscience’ sake more plainly argued or more coolly stated?AMS November 1886, page 84.5

But there is no better way of putting a theory to the test than to see it in actual practice, and this theory is now in practice in Turkey; not to the perfection, however, that it would be in this country if the National Reform party should succeed; but all it lacks is the energy of the officials whose duty it is to enforce the law. In the New York Independent of September 2, 1886, is a clear account of the “Turkish policy toward the Christian schools” in which we find the following practical illustration of Professor Seelye’s theory:—AMS November 1886, page 84.6

“It has enforced upon its Christian subjects the tax for the support of public schools, and it has opened a great number of primary and high schools for Moslems in all parts of the empire. But it has not opened a single school for Christians as provided by the law, so that the funds raised from the Christians, by taxation, go to the support of the Moslem schools of the empire. If a Christian wishes to send his children to one of the Government primary schools, he finds that the course of study consists mainly of the Koran and the biography of Mohammed; or, in case of a high school, he finds in addition to these some elementary sciences and a little history, carefully emasculated to avoid any impression on the mind of the pupil, that there is or can be any country in the world so glorious, or so peaceful and generally happy, as the empire of Turkey. He finds also that his children must give up the study of their own native language, and must be content to study Turkish and Arabic. If, with these drawbacks, he still wishes to profit by the schools which are supported by his taxes, he finds that, except in two or three of the largest cities, no Christian will be allowed to study in a Moslem primary or high school, because the Moslems feel that it is wrong for infidels to read so holy a work as the Koran, which is the chief text-book in these schools.”AMS November 1886, page 84.7

Now we should like for President Seelye, in accordance with his theory, to point out any wrong in this action of the Government of Turkey. In the Government of Turkey the Koran embodies the religion which it has settled as the one which “is adapted to the end at which the State is aiming.” The Christians are taxed for the support and propagation of that religion. And if children of the Christian are to receive any benefit from the taxes which he is forced to pay, they must receive it from the Koran in the schools where the Koran and its religion is taught. Now the conscience of no Christian subject, there nor anywhere else, will approve of such a system in Turkey thus enforced upon Christians. But the State of Turkey is “courageous,” it does not “falter,” and therefore upon Mr. Seelye’s theory it must be “wise.” If the few Christians there, or anywhere in behalf of those who are there, lift up their voices against this practice, then the Turkish Government may say in Mr. Seelye’s own words, “We keep in view here the maxim, de minimis non curat lex.” And what reply can be made by Mr. Seelye or those who favor the National Reform movement in this country?AMS November 1886, page 84.8

Now, if this theory is wrong in Turkey, how can it be right in the United States? But the practical working of this theory is precisely what the National Reform party is aiming to establish in this country. Are the Americans ready for it? To what is this country coming when such monstrous doctrines are so plainly avowed by such men as Professor Seelye? Is America ready to copy after the “unspeakable Turk”?AMS November 1886, page 84.9

A. T. J.

“Some Features of the Reformed Constitution” The American Sentinel 1, 11, pp. 84, 85.

ATJ

WE propose to give the American people a view of our Constitution as it will appear when amended to conform to the views of the National Reformers. This is a matter that concerns every one, and will do so more and more, as the National Reform party grows in influence and power. In this matter of reforming the Constitution, and thereby the nation, these National Reformers begin with the Preamble. At the first National Convention ever held by the National Reformers—Alleghany City, Pa., January 27, 28, 1864—a memorial to Congress was adopted, asking the United States Senate and House of Representatives to adopt measures for amending the Constitution of the United States, so as to read in substance as follows, the Amendment in brackets:—AMS November 1886, page 84.1

THE PREAMBLE

“We, the people of the United States [humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian Government], and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”AMS November 1886, page 84.2

It will be seen at a glance that this work of “reforming” the Constitution, cannot stop with the Preamble. For as the amended Preamble demands “a Christian Government,” it follows that the whole Constitution will have to be made to conform to this idea. This is exactly the aim of the Reformers. In that same memorial to Congress, immediately following the reformed Preamble as above quoted, is the following:—AMS November 1886, page 84.3

“And further: that such changes with respect to the oath of office, slavery, and all other matters, should be introduced into the body of the Constitution as may be necessary to give effect to these Amendments in the Preamble.”AMS November 1886, page 84.4

To present some of these changes, which will be necessary to make the body of the Constitution conform to the reformed Preamble, is the purpose of this article. As the purpose of this reformed Preamble is declared to be “to constitute a Christian Government,” it necessarily follows that all who are to have any part or lot in the Government must be Christians. Therefore Section 1 of Article X1V of Amendments to the Constitution will have to be reformed so as to read thus:—AMS November 1886, page 84.5

All Christian persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside, etc.AMS November 1886, page 84.6

This then being a “Christian Government,” all officials in the Government will have to be Christians. Therefore Section 2 of Article I of the Constitution will have to be reformed so as to read as follows:—AMS November 1886, page 84.7

No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be a Christian, and an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.AMS November 1886, page 84.8

Section 3 of the same Article will have to read the same way in regard to Senators, thus:—AMS November 1886, page 84.9

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be a Christian, and an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.AMS November 1886, page 84.10

In relation to the President, Section 1, Article II, will have to read about as follows:—AMS November 1886, page 84.11

No person except a Christian, and natural-born citizen of the United States, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years resident within the United States.AMS November 1886, page 84.12

In the matter of the oath this same Section will have to be reformed so as to read something like this:—AMS November 1886, page 84.13

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath of office: I do solemnly swear “in the presence of the eternal God, that during the whole term of my office I will serve the same eternal God to the utmost of my power, according as he hath required in his most holy word, contained in the Old and New Testaments; and according to the same word, will maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus; AND SHALL ABOLISH ALL FALSE RELIGION CONTRARY TO THE SAME; and shall rule the people committed to my charge according to the will and command of God revealed in his word; and shall procure to the utmost of my power to the Church of God, and the whole Christian people, true and perfect peace;” and that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.AMS November 1886, page 84.14

This is a genuine National Reform oath, and is strictly according to the doctrines which that Association preaches. To accord with this, Article VI will have to be reformed about as follows:—AMS November 1886, page 84.15

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by the aforesaid oath, substituting in each case the title of his own office for the words “President of the United States;”AMS November 1886, page 84.16

AND THE TEST OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION SHALL be required as a qualification to every office or public trust under the United States.AMS November 1886, page 86.1

This will necessitate the reform of Article I of Amendments to the Constitution, so that its first clause shall read thus:—AMS November 1886, page 86.2

Congress shall make laws respecting the establishment of the Christian religion; prohibiting the free exercise of all, other religion and of all irreligion; and abridging the freedom of speech and of the press in religious matters.AMS November 1886, page 86.3

It is certain that all these changes in the body of the Constitution will not be made without universal and almost endless controversy. To say nothing of the open and confirmed opposition that there will be, it is evident that among those who would favor the changes, there will be great differences of opinion upon the exact shape and wording in which the changed Articles shall be couched. Nor will the controversy be confined simply to the called-for changes in the Constitution. As the reformed Preamble declares the “revealed will” of Christ to be the “supreme law,” the changes in the Constitution will be but the culmination of a grand national discussion as to what is the revealed will of Christ, and just how it is to be made applicable in national affairs. This is only what the National Reformers expect. In the Christian Statesman February 21, 1884, Rev. J. C. K. Milligan writes on this subject, as follows:—AMS November 1886, page 86.4

“The changes will come gradually, and probably only after the whole frame-work of Bible legislation has been thoroughly canvassed by Congress and State Legislatures, by the Supreme Courts of the United States and of the several States, and by lawyers and citizens; an outpouring of the Spirit might soon secure it.”AMS November 1886, page 86.5

But that the National Reformers expect such a condition of affairs as this, is not all. They are doing, and will do, their very best to create it; not out of love for the Bible, nor for Christianity, but for their own self-aggrandizement. This is clearly revealed by Mr. Milligan in words immediately following the passage just quoted. He continues:—AMS November 1886, page 86.6

“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 decision 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.’”AMS November 1886, page 86.7

Exactly! the churches are “Zion,” and “the law shall go forth of Zion.” Therefore in the national canvass of “the whole frame-work of Bible legislation,” when it comes to the changes in the body of the Constitution, and thus the culmination of the discussion, in the form of law, then Congress, the State Legislatures, and the Supreme Courts will have to receive that law from the churches and pulpits, and the law in its final form will have to be according to the mould or the indorsement of the “leaders and teachers” in the churches, for “the law shall go forth of Zion, and the “final decision will be developed there.” And then after this august deliverance the Rev. Mr. Milligan straightens himself up and admiringly pats himself, and all his fellows, upon the back, after this style:—AMS November 1886, page 86.8

“There certainly is no class of citizens more intelligent, patriotic, and trustworthy, than the leaders and teachers in our churches.”AMS November 1886, page 86.9

In connection with these words are certain scriptures which we would commend to Mr. Milligan’s consideration: “Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.” Proverbs 27:2. “For men to search their own glory is not glory.” Proverbs 25:27. “Not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.” 2 Corinthians 10:18. But whether they will heed these scriptures or not there is one thing certain: that is, by the evidences here presented, it is perfectly clear that the direct aim of the leaders in the National Reform movement is the exaltation of themselves into a hierarchy as absolute as is that of Mormonism, or as was that of the Papacy in the supremest hours of the Dark Ages. They deliberately propose to make themselves the arbiters in every controversy, and the interpreters of Scripture on all points, moral, civil, theological, and ecclesiastical. And mark, their decision, it is plainly declared, will be “final.” There can be no appeal, for there is none higher than they. There can be no appeal to God, for is not the Lord King in Zion? and don’t they represent Zion? and isn’t the law to go forth of Zion? Thus they would make themselves the vicegerents of the Lord, and the fountain of all law. And just now, and in view of these propositions of the National Reformers, the American people would do well to remember the truth stated by Dean Milman in relation to what is simply a matter of fact in all history: “In proportion as the ecclesiastics became co-legislators, heresies became civil crimes, and liable to civil punishments.”AMS November 1886, page 86.10

Upon the surface, some of the changes in the Constitution, which we have marked, appear very innocent. It is only when we go below the surface that the real iniquity of the thing appears. When the real purpose of the movement is discovered, it is found that the Christianity that is to become national, is just what this hierarchy shall declare to be Christianity; that the “revealed will” which is to be the supreme law of the land, is what the hierarchy shall declare to be the revealed will; it is seen that in submitting to the proposed test of the Christian religion, it is not such a view of that religion as a man’s own conscience approves, but such a view as the hierarchy approves; that in submitting to this proposed revealed will as the supreme law, it is not to that revealed will as a man may read it in the Scripture and interpret it by the best light of his own conscience, but to what the hierarchy shall declare to be the revealed will, as interpreted by their own will. Then there is no more the liberty of every man worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience, but all must worship (?) according to the dictates of the hierarchy.AMS November 1886, page 86.11

Then when these “intelligent, patriotic, and trustworthy leaders in our churches” shall have succeeded in thus placing themselves in the position of supreme arbiter of all controversies, and supreme interpreter in all points of the revealed will of Christ, it will be necessary to reform Section 7 of Article I of the Constitution, so that it shall read about as follows:—AMS November 1886, page 86.12

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the President, shall, before it become a law, be presented to “the leaders and teachers in our churches,” whose “decision” shall be “final.”AMS November 1886, page 86.13

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President, and to “the churches and pulpits” of the United States, and the “decision” of “the leaders and teachers in our churches” shall be “final.”AMS November 1886, page 86.14

There, fellow-citizens, are some of the features that our Constitution will present, when it shall have been reformed according to the doctrines of the National Reform party. We do not say that the work is at all complete, but this is all that we have space to present at this time. We have not forced a single point, for every change which we have marked, we can sustain by the writings of the National Reformers themselves. We have simply presented the logic of the National Reform propositions. If the National Reformers object to our conclusions, they will have to lay propositions. If there are any of our readers who do not yet see that the success of the National Reform movement will be the establishment of an absolute hierarchy in this nation, we ask them to wait till the next issue of the AMERICAN SENTINEL, when we promise, if the Lord will, to present such evidence both of fact and of law, as shall leave no room for any reasonable doubt. A. T. J.AMS November 1886, page 86.15

October 1886

December 1886