“Dr. Mullally Opposes the Endorsement of Dr. Parkhurst’s Methods” American Sentinel 10, 3, pp. 19, 20.

AMS is well known, there was quite a thorough political revolution in this city at the election last November. As is also well known, Dr. Parkhurst, by political and immoral methods, had a considerable share in bringing this about. Tributes of honor have been paid to Dr. Parkhurst by different secular organizations. Dr. Parkhurst is a Presbyterian in religious connection, and a member of the “Presbytery of New York.” Some, at least, of this Presbytery think that Dr. Parkhurst’s political work is so much of a Presbyterian affair that the Presbytery, as such, should [20] honor him for it. To this end a resolution was introduced at the regular monthly meeting of the Presbytery in December,—the first after the election. But Dr. Mullally (all honor to him), braved the opprobrium that he could not help but know must come upon him for such a thing, and openly challenged the proposition. The report says:—

Dr. Mullally (he was careful to tell the reporters to spell his name with four l’s) does not believe that a minister is called to preach civic righteousness; he would draw a sharp line between duties to the State and duties to God, and he would exclude from “the court of Jesus Christ” all civil and social methods. If the members of the Presbytery want to give recognition to Dr. Parkhurst’s work they ought, he contends, to adjourn as a Presbytery and meet as citizens. Of course they did not want to do this, and so put the resolution over for a month.

This is perfectly sound and Christian doctrine. And yet the Independent cannot pour contempt enough upon Dr. Mullally for having done this. And the Independent makes great pretensions to being in favor of separation of Church and State! Now if Dr. Parkhurst’s political and immoral work was done as a Presbyterian; and if this work was in the regular line of the work of the Presbytery of New York, then of course it is proper enough that the Presbytery as such, in regular course of its Presbyterial business, should pass a resolution in commendation of him and his work; and then, too, it follows that the Presbytery of New York counts its interests and work as identical with the interests and work of the city of New York, and that, therefore, there is a union of the Presbytery of New York with the city of New York; in other words, a union of Church and State.

Dr. Mullally consistently advocates the separation of Church and State in the Presbytery of New York. The Independent professedly believes in the separation of Church and State, and at the same time scathingly condemns Dr. Mullally. Therefore from this, one of two things as certainly follows as that two and two make four; namely, either the Independent does not really believe in the separation of Church and State, or else it does not know what the separation of Church and State is. And in the United States there are entirely too many people who are just like the Independent. [20]

Share this: