THE following question and answer appeared in the Christian Statesman of Jan. 12:—
Question 23. F. L., Utica, N.Y. “I am greatly pleased with the Christian Statesman. It is preëminently the reform paper of our country. But does it not antagonize Roman Catholics too much? Would it not be better to secure their coöperation as possible in the great cause of Christian government as against infidel and atheistic secularism?”
Answer. This paper does not oppose any friend of Christian government, be he a member of any church, or of no church. It does oppose every principle or system that denies the right and duty of the nation to take the law of Christ as its supreme rule of conduct. This right and duty require the nation to take the Word of God as its authoritative law book, and to interpret and apply it for itself. Romanism antagonizes this right and duty of the nation. It puts the interpretation of moral law by the “infallible” head of the Romish system in the place of Christ’s own [35] immediate authority over the civil power. This system is one of the gravest dangers threatening our land to-day. Fidelity to the cause of Christian civil government demands that this dangerous enemy of our civil and religious liberties shall be vigilantly opposed.
Under another head attention has been called to the change of attitude on the part of the Christian Statesman cohorts from the position of fawning suppliants for fraternal coöperation with Rome, to that of open and avowed enemies of the system. In this article we call attention to the similarity of the contending systems. For years the system inaugurated by the Christian Statesman begged the Roman Catholic Church in the United States to aid it in securing from Congress some legislative action which would commit the Government of the United States to religious legislation, and thereby break down the American idea of complete separation of Church and State, which the National Government had maintained for more than a hundred years, but which the Christian Statesman system assailed as “political atheism.” Seeing their opportunity to accomplish a long-cherished object similar to that of their Protestant petitioners, the leading prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States joined forces with what we will call apostate Protestantism, and influenced Congress to do that which it had persistently refused to do (enact a Sunday law), and which the Senate in refusing to do in 1829 said:—
Should Congress in legislative capacity adopt the sentiment it would establish the principle that the legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. It would involve a legislative decision on a religious controversy, and on a point in which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion, without disturbing the peace of society or endangering its liberties. If this principle is once introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds. [248] …
Let the national legislature once perform an act which involves the decision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The precedent will then be established, and the foundation laid, for the usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country, which has been the desolating scourge of the fairest portions of the Old World. [249]
Now that these combined forces have accomplished that fatal thing; now that Congress has presumed “to determined what are the laws of God” at the dictation of this combine; now that it has performed “an act which involves a religious controversy;” now that it has “passed its legitimate bounds;” now that the precedent is “established and the foundation laid for that usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country, which has been the desolating scourge of the fairest portions of the Old World,” the rogues which accomplished the ruin have fallen out. But why fall out? Are not their objects the same? “Aye, there’s the rub.” Their objects are the same; both want to be pope, and infallible interpreter of the “Word of God” “in the place of Christ’s own immediate authority over the civil power,“—over our captive Republic. And now, to show that this is the case with the system voiced by the Christian Statesman’s answer previously quoted, we will proceed to dissect it.
It says that it is “the right of the nation to take the law of Christ as its supreme rule of conduct. This right and duty require the nation to take the Word of God as an authoritative law book, and to interpret and apply it for itself.” But who make up the nation?—The people. Are the people all agreed on the same interpretation of the “law of Christ,“—the “Word of God”?—No; their interpretations are legion. Does not the Christian Statesman element know this?—Yes. How, then, does it propose that the nation shall interpret and apply the law of Christ for itself?—It doesn’t propose that it shall. This was strikingly illustrated in the recent political struggle in Pennsylvania. Mr. Lyon was candidate for the office of lieutenant-governor, and his interpretation of the “law of Christ” regarding Sabbath observance, did not agree with the interpretation held by the popular Protestant churches as voiced by the Christian Statesman. What did this Christian Statesman element do?—It interpreted the law of Christ regarding the Sabbath, and told Mr. Lyon that if he did not accept the infallible interpretation of this apostate Protestant pope, they would knife him at the polls. He refused, and this new pope proclaimed a political church boycott against Mr. Lyon; and although he was elected, he ran considerably behind his ticket. What this element tried to do in Pennsylvania in 1894, it succeeded in doing in 1892 when it bulldozed Congress into legislating its interpretation of the “Word of God” upon all the people of the nation, and later boasted of it in this fashion:—
What did Congress do last summer on the Sabbath question?—It did just what the Christian people asked it to do…. Representatives in Congress are anxious to do what the people [these popish preachers] want done. They are waiting for instruction; they ask for it…. Who is to give this instruction?—Only those who have it can give it [meaning themselves]. Have not Representatives been chosen without much reference to what moral light or character they had in themselves? [250]
Thus it is evident that this apostate Protestant element, a small minority but well organized, arrogates to itself the right to act as pope, to interpret the “Word of God” for the “nation,” and then instruct representatives of the nation in this interpretation, and in case these statesmen desire to follow their own interpretation, it is the duty of this new pope to compel submission under penalty of political ruin.
And now, to show the similarity between the Roman Catholic pope and this apostate Protestant pope, we print their claims in parallel columns:—
The Roman Catholic pope claims:—
The apostate Protestant pope claims:—
That it is the right and duty of the nation to take the “law of Christ” as its supreme rule of conduct.
That it is the right and duty of the nation to take the “law of Christ” as its supreme rule of conduct.
That the individual should not be permitted to interpret that law for himself.
That the individual should not be permitted to interpret that law for himself.
That he is divinely authorized to interpret the “law of Christ” for the individual and for the nation; and to enforce that interpretation by civil pains and penalties.
That he is divinely authorized to interpret the “law of Christ” for the individual and for the nation; and to enforce that interpretation by civil pains and penalties.
Is there a single statement in the above conclusion that can be successfully controverted? If not we then ask, is there not a complete likeness between the Roman Catholic pope and the apostate Protestant pope? And is there any wonder that two infallible popes, both contending for the control of the American Republic, should quarrel? Is there any wonder that the apostate Protestant pope should turn “white with fear and wrath” on beholding the Roman Catholic pope in possession of the prey, the captive Republic, which it petitioned that pope to help it capture? [35]