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

    March 1887

    “An Image of the Papacy” The American Sentinel 2, 3, pp. 19, 20.


    IN the Pittsburg National Reform Convention of 1885, President Brunot said:—AMS March 1887, page 19.1

    “The First Amendment of the Constitution which provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ was never intended to de-Christianize the nation, as some now hold, but, on the contrary, was meant to keep it Christian and free. First, by guarding against the establishment of a church or sect; and second, against restrictive legislation in case the power to enact laws should fall into the hands of the enemies of all religion.”—Christian Statesman, April 30, 1885.AMS March 1887, page 19.2

    Very good. It is plain therefore that any interference or change in that amendment would tend to de-Christianize the nation, and to prevent its being free. As that amendment guards against the establishment of a church, to change the amendment would open the way for the establishment of a church. As that amendment guards against restrictive legislation by the enemies of all religion, should they have the power to legislate so, to change the amendment would open the way for the enemies of all religion to restrict or abolish the practice of the Christian religion in this nation.AMS March 1887, page 19.3

    But to change that amendment and so to open the way for these evils, is precisely what that association, of which Mr. Brunot is president, proposes to do. Thus says “Secretary” W. J. Coleman:—AMS March 1887, page 19.4

    “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 [National Reform] 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.”—Statesman, November 1, 1883.AMS March 1887, page 19.5

    By their own words, then, it is clearly the purpose of the National Reform Association to reverse the First Amendment of the United States Constitution so as to allow Congress to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Therefore it stands proven that the work of the National Reform Association is to open the way for “the establishment of a church or sect,” and for the destruction of the freedom of this nation.AMS March 1887, page 19.6

    For (1), The State recognition of Christianity in law—both Constitutional and statutory—and the making of laws respecting and enforcing the principles of that religion, is that which the National Reform Association proposes to accomplish. But that is precisely what Constantine did in the fourth century, and out of it grew the Papacy. And just as surely as the National Reformers succeed in doing with Christianity in this nation, what Constantine did with it in the Roman State, so surely will it follow that out of their action will grow the living image of the Papacy. Nothing can prevent it, because—AMS March 1887, page 19.7

    (2) In the day when, by their proposed change in the First Amendment of the Constitution, the National Reformers put it into the power and make it the province of Congress to make laws respecting religion, or prohibiting its free exercise; that very day they open wide the gates and give free course to the enemies of all religion, and to the enemies of Christianity in particular, just as soon as they can secure the power to make laws restricting or even prohibiting the free exercise of the Christian religion.AMS March 1887, page 19.8

    And when the way is thus opened for the enemies of the Christian religion to oppress it, as soon as they can secure the power, everybody knows that they will secure the power at the earliest possible moment. Everybody also knows that the enemies of Christianity have no compunctions of conscience in the matter, and that they will leave no means unemployed, that they will stop at nothing, to secure the coveted power. Therefore, if the National Reformers will maintain their cause in the conflict which they shall thus have opened, they will have to do it upon the field which they themselves have chosen—the field of politics—and with the weapons which their enemies shall choose. They will have to meet political power with political power; they will have to meet force with force; bribery with bribery; intrigue with intrigue; chicanery with chicanery; hypocrisy with hypocrisy. This they will be compelled to do or else lose all they shall have gained, as soon as they shall have gained it.AMS March 1887, page 19.9

    This is precisely the course through which the Papacy was developed. And the long and constant practice of these bad methods, which the bishop of Rome was compelled to employ if the Christianity which he represented was to hold its position against its enemies and the ambitious rivals of its power—the practice of these bad methods it was which made the Papacy what it is—“the very master-piece of human wisdom,” and the most complete of all contrivances that have ever been “devised for deceiving and oppressing mankind.” And if the National Reformers succeed in securing the changes in our Constitution which they propose; then by the practice of these bad methods which they will be compelled to employ to successfully cope with the enemies of the Christian religion, there will be developed in free America a perfect likeness of the Papacy.AMS March 1887, page 19.10

    On the other hand, having secured those changes in the Constitution; having empowered Congress to make laws respecting religion; and having entered upon this political contest to determine what kind of a Congress it shall be which shall make the laws respecting religion; then if the National Reformers do not employ the like methods with their political opponents, they will be defeated, the seats in Congress will be filled with the enemies of religion, and so the Christian religion in free America, its happiest home on earth, will be sold into the hands of its bitterest enemies, waiting to destroy.AMS March 1887, page 19.11

    In the one case, free Christianity will be enslaved; in the other, her beautiful form will be marred and her fair name dishonored; and in either case the unkindest thrust of all will be by the traitorous hand of National Reform. For a traitorous hand it is, because, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, as it is, Christianity is forever safe from all her enemies, and forever free, in free America. With the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as it is, the presidential chair and every seat in Congress might be filled with the worst infidels and the most bitter enemies of Christianity that are in the land, and Christianity could not be molested or disturbed in the least degree. But with that amendment changed as the National Reformers propose to change it, then in the filling of the presidential chair and of each seat in Congress, Christianity would have just cause for fear, because there would be no means of knowing whether those who gain the seats were really her friends or her enemies; and with a bare majority of the enemies of Christianity in Congressional seats, every Christian in the land would be in danger of losing the dearest rights known to man. Traitorous, therefore, would be the hand of any but an avowed enemy of Christianity, that would attempt to break down this safeguard of Christianity in the United States; but to sweep away this safeguard is what the National Reform association, under the guise of the Christian name, declares that it is its purpose to do, and therefore most traitorous is the hand of National Reform.AMS March 1887, page 20.1

    One or the other of these evils will inevitably follow the success of National Reform in its designs upon the United States Constitution. The certain consequence will be either that Christianity will be delivered into the hands of open infidelity and atheism, or else there will be developed a new form of the Papacy to meet, and successfully contend with, the open enemies of Christianity. As to which of these forms of evil would be the worst we can form no opinion. Of the former we have an illustration in the French Revolution; of the latter we have an illustration in the Inquisition, the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day, and the Crusade against the Albigenses.AMS March 1887, page 20.2

    Yet, although we can form no opinion as to which would be the worst, we can form an opinion as to which form would rule—and ruin. We are fully persuaded that it would be the image of the Papacy. We are assured of this because we are satisfied that the National Reform Association, on its own part, would prove itself fully equal to the task of outdoing the open enemies of Christianity in all the political methods they might employ; and this assurance is made doubly sure, by the confessed fact that National Reform will be in close alliance with the Papacy itself. Read this:—AMS March 1887, page 20.3

    “Whenever they [the Roman Catholics] are willing to co-operate in resisting the progress of political atheism, we will gladly join hands with them.”—Christian Statesman, December 11, 1884.AMS March 1887, page 20.4

    And this:—AMS March 1887, page 20.5

    “We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, for the time is not yet come when the Roman Church will consent to strike hands with other churches—as such; but the time has come to make repeated advances and gladly to accept co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it. It is one of the necessities of the situation.”—Rev. S. F Scovel, Christian Statesman, August 81, 1881.AMS March 1887, page 20.6

    And the National Reform Association, inspired and supported by the Papacy can out-do political atheism in all the politically atheistic methods that they can employ. The Roman Church has had sixteen hundred years’ practice “in resisting the progress of political atheism,” and there is not a political method known to the human race, of which she is not the consummate mistress. In her presence all the political atheists in Christendom must bide their diminished heads. This is why we are certain that the success of National Reform will be to develop a new form of the Papacy. For with this alliance with Rome which the National Reformers are so anxious to complete—so anxious, indeed, that they will make repeated advances and suffer repeated rebuffs—when, under their reformed Constitution, the political conflict comes on between National Reform and the enemies of all religion, the “Reformers” will be thoroughly furnished unto all bad works. If bribery is demanded, Rome can furnish scores of eminent examples among the Popes, and ages of practice among all classes from kings and emperors to peasants and beggars. If mob violence or military force becomes necessary to the success of a candidate for office, Rome is likewise an adept in this, as the election of Pope Damasus and of many of his successors abundantly proves. If intrigue, treachery, fraud, and the most secret and deceptive wire-working are required, there are the Jesuits, whom Leo XI II. has lately restored to all their rights and privileges, and has thus prepared this strong support to National Reform.AMS March 1887, page 20.7

    We might follow these lines and extend these illustrations to almost any required length, but these points are sufficient to show to all thinking men that out of the success of National Reform there can come no good thing, but only evil, and that continually and continually increasing. If any of the National Reformers object to the points which we have here made, let them not blame us, let them call to account the president of their Association, and their district secretary, W. J. Coleman, whose statements, fairly quoted, we have only traced to their logical and inevitable consequences. If either President Brunot’s or Secretary Coleman’s statement in regard to the First Amendment are not correct, let the National Reformers call him to account and correct him not us. We have only reasoned upon the premises laid down by these leading officials of the National Reform Association; if the premises are not true, that is their fault, not ours—let them correct the premises and we will revise our conclusions. But if the premises are true, and we believe they are, then the demonstration is complete that the success of National Reform will assure in this nation the development of a living image of the Papacy.AMS March 1887, page 20.8

    A. T. J.

    “Secretary Gault and the Scripture Again” The American Sentinel 2, 3, p. 22.


    SECRETARY GAULT said that under “the model of government which Christ gave to Israel” “all their rulers were elected by the people.” We asked him for one instance of it, and he refers us to Deuteronomy 1:13, and quotes: “‘Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.’” But he does not quote enough. In that place Moses is rehearsing what had been done long before. The whole connection is this: “I spake unto you at that time, saying, I am not able to bear you myself alone; ... how can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife? Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou halt spoken is good for us to do. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.” Deuteronomy 1:9-15.AMS March 1887, page 22.1

    Now at whose direction was this done? Mr. Gault says that it was under “the model of government which Christ gave to Israel.” We can easily learn whether it was or not. Moses says, “At that time.” At what time. Turn to Exodus 18:13-26. As Moses sat to judge the people, he was occupied all day from morning till evening in hearing and deciding the cases of the people who came. “And Moses’s father-in-law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee; for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, ... thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens; and let them judge the people at all seasons; and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge; so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.... So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father-in-law, and did all that he had said.”AMS March 1887, page 22.2

    There can be no shadow of doubt therefore that the rulers referred to by Moses in the text cited by Mr. Gault, were those who were appointed at the suggestion of Moses’s father-in-law, who was Jethro, a Midianite. Does Mr. Gault mean to say that this piece of advice given by Jethro was the model government which Christ gave to Israel? If not, and most assuredly it was not, then what is his argument and citation of that scripture good for? It is good for nothing, but to show his utter and inexcusable ignorance of the true bearing of scripture. Of all men who have ever put themselves into print, the one who makes the most brilliant success of getting on the wrong side of every question that he touches, and every time that he is undoubtedly the “Rev.” M. A. Gault, district secretary of the National Reform Association. A. T. J.AMS March 1887, page 22.3

    “The National Reform Idea of Tolerance” The American Sentinel 2, 3, pp. 27, 28.


    IN several numbers of the SENTINEL reference has been made to the speech made by Rev. Jonathan Edwards, D. D., in the New York National Reform Convention, but that speech is so fully representative of the principles of National Reform, that we feel justified in giving it a more extended notice than we have yet done. There are two or three points in it which we wish here to notice. Said the Doctor:—AMS March 1887, page 27.1

    “We want State and religion—and we are going to have it. It shall be that so far as the affairs of State require religion, it shall be revealed religion, the religion of Jesus Christ. The Christian oath and Christian morality shall have in this land ‘an undeniable legal basis.’ We use the word religion in its proper sense, as meaning a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God.”AMS March 1887, page 27.2

    Here, then, is the National Reform definition of religion, officially declared. Religion is a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God. And they are going to have in this Nation “State and religion.” That is to say, they are going to have “State and a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God.” In other words, they are going to have the State to associate itself with every man in his “personal relation of faith and obedience to God;” and the State must see to it that every “man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God” shall be none other than the Christian relation of faith and obedience. For it is the State that rules; it is the State that bears the responsibility; it is the State’s, and not the individual’s, personal relation of faith and obedience to God that must take precedence. Therefore under their own definition, it is clear that the direct aim of National Reform is to have the State to interfere with, to regulate, and control every man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God. And that is nothing else than a religious despotism. Yet they affect to deny that under such an order of things there would be any oppression. But oppression is absolutely inseparable from the scheme. For to deprive every man of his own choice and the exercise of his own personal relation of faith and obedience to God, is the National Reform idea; but without coercion all men are not going to yield this right; while coercion in such a matter is only the cruelest oppression.AMS March 1887, page 27.3

    Well indeed might Mr. Edwards say, as he does:—AMS March 1887, page 27.4

    “We are warned that to engraft this doctrine upon the Constitution will be found oppressive; that it will infringe the rights of conscience; and we are told that there are atheists, deists, Jews, and Seventh-day Baptists, who would be sufferers under it.”AMS March 1887, page 27.5

    Whether he be atheist, deist, Jew, Seventh-day Baptist, or what not, every man who has a particle of respect for personal right, freedom of thought, or liberty of conscience, must be a sufferer under it. And we cannot avoid the impression, that when these men set forth such abominable doctrine, it must be that the loudest warning comes from their own hearts and consciences, unless, indeed, by the constant assertion of such outrageous principles, they have deadened their consciences.AMS March 1887, page 27.6

    But what reply does Mr. Edwards make to this warning? This:—AMS March 1887, page 27.7

    “The parties whose conscience we are charged with troubling, taken altogether, are but few in number. This determines nothing as to who is right, but the fact remains, and is worthy of note, that taken altogether, they amount to but a small fraction of our citizenship. They are not even as many as those among us who do not speak the English language. And then, further, they are almost wholly of foreign importation, and that of comparatively recent date, so that they did not share in the first settlement of this country; they did not brave the hardships; they did not profess the principles which have made that first settlement memorable.... They breathed no protests; they suffered no martyrdom.”AMS March 1887, page 27.8

    His reply to the “warning” is as atrocious as is the doctrine that gives rise to the warning. He replies to an objection by reasserting the doctrine, and adding to it a deliberate insult.AMS March 1887, page 27.9

    It might not be altogether impertinent to inquire, just here, To how great an extent did the Rev. Jonathan Edwards, D. D., or any of the National Reformers, “share in the first settlement of this country”? Of the hardships that made that settlement memorable, how many did he brave? What kind of a martyrdom has he ever suffered? and how many times has he suffered it? If these are the things upon which alone rests the surety of the title to the honor and dignity of American citizenship, what part was there enacted by the National Reformers that in them should be lodged the sum total of all such honor and dignity, and that to such a sole and transcendent degree of merit that to them and them alone it should be granted to bestow the privileges and immunities of citizenship in this great nation?AMS March 1887, page 27.10

    But Mr. Edwards continues his kind endeavor to relieve the minds of the people of all fear that “to engraft this doctrine upon the Constitution will be found oppressive.” And, after giving a clear definition of the terms, atheist, deist, Jew, and Seventh-day Baptist, he says:—AMS March 1887, page 27.11

    These all are, for the occasion, and so far as our Amendment is concerned, one class. They use the same arguments and the same tactics against us. They must be counted together.... The first named is the leader in the discontent and in the outcry.... It is his class. Its labors are almost wholly in his interest; its success would be almost wholly his triumph. The rest are adjuncts to him in this contest. They must be named from him; they must be treated as, for this question, one party. Now look at it—look at the controversy. The question is not between opinions that differ, but opinions that are opposite, that are contradictory, that mutually exclude each other. It is between Christianity and infidelity. It is between theism and atheism, between the acknowledgment of a God and the denial that there is any God.”AMS March 1887, page 27.12

    Notice: the question is “between the acknowledgment of a God, and the denial of any God.” This in the face of his own statement just before, that “the deist admits God;” and “the Jew admits God, Providence, and Revelation;” and “the Seventh-day Baptists believe in God and Christianity.” All this, and yet the contest is between the acknowledgment of a God, and the denial that there is any God; between theism and atheism; between Christianity and infidelity! How does it happen then that a people who “believe in God and Christianity,” must be classed with atheists and treated as atheists? Here is how:—AMS March 1887, page 27.13


    They “are conjoined with the other members of this class by the accident of differing with the mass of Christians upon the question of what precise day of the week shall be observed as holy.”AMS March 1887, page 27.14

    So then, bear in mind, fellow-citizens, that to “differ with the mass of Christians” is atheism. You may believe in God, and the Bible, and Christianity; you may practice in accordance with this belief ever so consistently; yet if you “differ with the mass of Christians” on a single point, you are an atheist; you may believe and practice all this, yet if you use a single argument against National Reform, the question instantly resolves itself into a contest between Christianity and infidelity—and you are the infidel; between theism and atheism—and you are the atheist; between the acknowledgment of a God, and the denial that there is any God—and you are the one who denies that there is any God. If they will do these things in a green tree, what will they not do in a dry? If this is the result of a difference with this National Reform “mass of Christians” now while they are simply grasping for power, what will the result be when once they shall have secured the power that they want? What right then shall the “atheist” have? Mr. Edwards tells us. Here are his words of comfort and assurance to those who fear oppression under the National Reform rule:—AMS March 1887, page 27.15

    “What are the rights of the atheist? I would tolerate him as I would tolerate a poor lunatic.... So long as he does not rave, so long as he is not dangerous, I would tolerate him.”AMS March 1887, page 27.16

    How blessedly tolerant a National Reform régime would be! If you differ with it on a single point, you shall be tolerated as is a lunatic, that is, kept under surveillance, so long as, like a craven, you allow yourself to be vowed into silence. But as soon as you begin to speak your sentiments, then you are “dangerous,” then you are “raving,” and the gentle National Reform rulers will have such a tender regard for you that they will supply you with bars and doors securely fastened.AMS March 1887, page 27.17

    But Mr. Edwards proceeds:—AMS March 1887, page 27.1

    “I would tolerate him as I would a conspirator. The atheist is a dangerous man.... But he shall be tolerated. He may live, and go free, hold his lands, and enjoy his home; he may even vote; but for any higher, more advanced citizenship, he is, as I hold, utterly disqualified. And we are aiming, not to increase, but to render definite his disqualification.”AMS March 1887, page 27.2

    That would be a model government indeed that would allow a conspirator to “go free, hold his lands, and enjoy his home, and even vote.” It is not the custom of governments to allow these privileges to persons who are plotters against the life of the government. Nor does National Reform propose really to do anything of the kind. We know, and in former numbers of this paper have abundantly shown in their own words, that National Reform does not intend to allow dissenters to vote nor to be citizens. No doubt Mr. Edwards means that he will tolerate him as he would a conspirator, and allow him these privileges “so long as he does not rave,” and “is not dangerous,” and so long as it is not known that he is a conspirator. But as soon as the “atheist” begins to utter any sentiments that “differ with the mass of Christians,” then he is raving, is dangerous, and a conspirator, and they will “tolerate”(?) him as such. Yes, continues this Reverend Doctor of Divinity:—AMS March 1887, page 27.3

    “Yes, to this extent I will tolerate the atheist, but no more. Why should I? The atheist does not tolerate me. He does not smile either in pity or in scorn upon my faith. He hates my faith, and he hates me for my faith.”AMS March 1887, page 27.4

    After the expression of such principles, there is no just ground for surprise that after a few more words he should exclaim: “Tolerate atheism, sir? There is nothing out of hell that I would not tolerate as soon.”AMS March 1887, page 27.5


    That is to say, He does not tolerate me, and I must not tolerate him. He does not smile either in pity or in scorn upon my faith; therefore I must make him grieve in lamentation and woe because of my faith. He hates me and my faith, and I must hate him and his unbelief.AMS March 1887, page 27.6

    And this is National Reform “Christianity.” This gentleman is one of the worthies to whom is committed the interpretation of Scripture on all “moral and civil, as well as ecclesiastical points,” and whose decision must be “final.” This is the way that the sublime principles of the sermon on the mount are to be exemplified when this nation becomes the National Reformed “kingdom of Christ.” But to correspond to such an exposition and exemplification, the sermon on the mount will have to be “re-enacted.” It now reads, in the words of Christ, as follows: “I say unto you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven.”AMS March 1887, page 27.7

    But National Reform says unto you, Hate your enemies, curse them that curse you, do evil to them that hate you, and persecute them that despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may agree “with the mass of Christians,” and be true children of National Reform; those who do not tolerate you, why should ye tolerate them? Therefore all things whatsoever ye would not that men should do to you, do ye that unto them; for this is the law of National Reform.AMS March 1887, page 27.8


    This idea of re-enactment is not altogether hypothetical in this connection, for in the same speech Mr. Edwards said that,AMS March 1887, page 27.9

    “If there be anything in the laws of Moses which the coming of Christ and the subsequent overthrow of Judaism did not abrogate, let them be pointed out—there cannot be many of them—and we are prepared to accept them and have them re-enacted.”AMS March 1887, page 27.10

    That is to say, They were enacted by the Lord of Heaven and earth, and if they have not been abrogated, please point them out and WE will have them re-enacted.AMS March 1887, page 27.11

    How much higher does arrogance need to exalt itself before it becomes dangerous? These men assume the authority to reckon and denounce as “atheists” all who oppose National Reform, and plainly assert that under the power which the “Reformers” would wield, all such “atheists” shall be relegated to the place and condition of the lunatic and the conspirator. But as though that were a small thing to do, they boldly usurp the place of the Most High, and consequentially inform us that in certain portions of the word of God what has not been abrogated they will have re-enacted.AMS March 1887, page 27.12

    Can it be possible that in all this land there is anybody who sees no danger in clothing with civil power such an association of men? Could anything be more intolerant than that which they deliberately propose to do? And yet all this is only the expression of their idea of tolerance! We wish they would convey to us some idea of what in their estimation would be intolerance.AMS March 1887, page 27.13

    It is high time that all understand that National Reform is a standing menace to human liberty; and that the success of National Reform will be the utter destruction of human liberty in free America.AMS March 1887, page 27.14

    A. T. J.

    Larger font
    Smaller font