Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

"As I read my Bible I fail to find any instance where Christ demanded or needed to close places and stop games in order that He might have a hearing. Why? Simply because Christ knew that what He had to offer was of greater attraction than what other men had to offer. Christ did not have to insist that there should be a law against fishing, so that men would be compelled to follow Him instead of going fishing. The old traditions and laws enacted by the Jews were not appealed to by Christ, except by way of comparison. The Pharisees tried hard to make Christ confine His preaching and His teaching so that they might conform to their own laws and traditions, just as some of the good but misled folks of today are trying to make the teaching and the preaching conform to the blue laws of two hundred years ago; but I hope that the misguided folks of this day will also fail in maintaining those dead and obsolete laws. Christ, the great Teacher, gave His view regarding the Sabbath question: "The

the church must ask the civil authorities to assist in making the world better, then the time is ripe for the church to become introspective and self-examining.

"I indorse the Sabbath day. It is the sweet boon for the working masses. But I object to anything that would make of the day other than a day on which people may worship God, whether that worship is sought in the church edifice, the home, the woods, or playground. Wherever

the soul that is in tune will seek communion with God, He will be found. "The church must

[graphic]

CITY HALL, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.' This statement is so clear and comprehensive that it ought not need one word of interpretation.

"When I read a resolution of a religious organization, censuring the mayor because he will not do just what the organization wants him to do, I cannot but wonder at their presumption. When the day has come when

remember that there are things which belong to Cæsar as well as those that belong to God."

Another writer on this issue in the Public Ledger, stressed this last point more fully as follows:

"No one can deny that the Sunday blue laws of 1794 were enacted for the sole benefit of a

religious sect or sects, but at the same time were contrary to the basic laws of our country, which granted civil and religious liberty. It has never been the prerogative of any civil power to enforce religious laws or belief. True religion is false to itself when it appeals to the civil arm for its observance. The Founder of the Christian religion expounded the principles that underlie a truly spiritual kingdom, and those that are the basic foundation of civil government. He drew a sharp line of separation between the domain of the spiritual and the sphere of the earthly government. Voluntary service is alone acceptable to God."

We agree with these men that there are things that belong to Cæsar and things that belong to God, and that neither has the right to meddle with the affairs of the other. The church has no right to interfere with the things that belong to the civil authorities any more than the state has a right to regulate and enforce the ritual of the church. When the churches of Philadelphia threaten to institute proceedings to impeach the mayor because he fails to dis

charge his civil duties, they are meddling with the things that are none of their business. Christ never commissioned his church to sit in judgment upon the rulers of civil government and condemn them by civil proceedings. The church during the Dark Ages tried this method; she issued interdicts and anathemas against civil rulers who refused to do her bidding. But what was gained in outward conformity was lost. in spiritual power. The mission of the church is not to compel, but to beseech men to be reconciled to God. The opinion of thinking men is well expressed by Benjamin Franklin: "When religion is good, it will take care of itself; when it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."

Let us keep church and state forever separate in America.

C. S. L.

The Name of God in the Constitution - Why Omitted

A

By George B. Thompson

BRANCH of the National Reform Association is sending out circulars in which attention is again directed to the need in America of a "national regeneration," and calling upon the clergy to preach on the subject, "The Need of Christianity in National and International Life."

This is all good. But what the National Reform Association has particularly in mind is to secure national legislation which will suitably acknowledge God in the Constitution and the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of the nation. The aims of this association are set forth in the following article from its constitution:

"The object of this society shall be to maintain existing Christian features in the American government, to promote needed reforms in

the action of the government touching the Sabbath, the institution of the family, the religious element in education, the oath, and public morality as affected by the liquor traffic and other kindred evils; and to secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and so indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our Government on an undeniably legal basis in the fundamental law of the land."

Quoted in "American State Papers," p. 343.

The writer believes that there is need of regeneration in both the church and the state. The symptoms of national decay are world wide, and the spiritual power which ought to be seen in the church is painfully lacking. But the remedy for this is not the crutch of civil power, but prayer, the indwelling Word,

and the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Putting the name of God in the Constitution will not in any way improve things.

Much has been said about the name of the Deity being omitted from the Constitution, making it, we are told, a godless document. But the name of God does not appear in certain books of the Bible. Are we to conclude that they also are godless documents?

as this country, the foundation of whose government they were then laying, was to be the home of the oppressed of all nations of the earth, whether Christian or pagan, and in full realization of the dangers which the union between church and state had imposed upon so many nations in the Old World, with great unanimity that it was inexpedient to put anything into the Constitution or frame of government which might be construed to be a reference to any religious creed or doctrine.

"And they further find that this decision was accepted by our Christian fathers with

There are strong organizations which stand ready, once our nation recognizes any religion or any particular god, to seize the opportunity and seek to pervert the government to their own ends. If the name of God should be inserted in the Constitution, the question would at once be raised as to which god, for there are gods many and lords many, and the agnostic and the Hindu, who have equal rights under the nation's fundamental law as it now stands, would ask if the Christian religion was to be given a preference. It was just such steps as the National Reform Association proposes that once lighted the fires of persecution,

[graphic]

A Proposal to Subvert the Constitution

and darkened the earth for a thousand years.

The request to put an acknowledgment of God in the Constitution was given careful consideration by Congress in 1874, and on February 18, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported in part as follows:

"That, upon examination of even the meager debates by the fathers of the Republic in the convention which framed the Constitution, they find that the subject of this memorial was most fully and carefully considered, and then, in that convention, decided, after grave deliberation, to which the subject was entitled, that,

[ocr errors]

such great unanimity that in the amendments which were afterward proposed, in order to make the Constitution more acceptable to the nation, none has ever been proposed to the States by which this wise determination of the fathers has been attempted to be changed. Wherefore, your committee report that it is the above memorial, and ask that they be disinexpedient to legislate upon the subject of charged from the further consideration thereof, and that this report, together with the petition, be laid upon the table."-" House Reports," Vol. I, 43d Congress, 1st Session, Report No. 143.

The absence of the name of God from the Constitution is not because its framers were godless men.

[ocr errors]

And, finally, the framers of the Constitution were, without exception, believers in God and in future rewards and punishments, from the presiding officer, General Washington, who was a communicant member of the Episcopal Church, down to the least orthodox, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, who was affected by the spirit of English deism and French infidelity, but retained a certain reverence for the religion of his Puritan ancestors. All recognized the hand of divine Providence in leading them safely through the War of Independence. Dr. Franklin, in an eloquent and highly creditable speech, proposed the employment of a chaplain in the Convention, who should invoke the wisdom and blessing of God upon the responsible work of framing laws for a new nation."— "Church and State," Schaff, p. 41.

Concerning the omission of any explicit reference to the Deity, Schaff further says:

[ocr errors]

"The absence of the names of God and Christ, in a purely political and legal document, no more proves denial or irreverence than the absence of those names in a mathematical treatise, or the statutes of a bank or railroad corporation. The title Holiness' does not make the Pope of Rome any holier than he is, and it makes the contradiction only more glaring in such characters as Alexander VI. The book of Esther and the Song of Solomon are undoubtedly productions of devout worshipers of Jehovah; and yet the name of God does not occur once in them.

"We may go further and say that the Constitution not only contains nothing which is irreligious or unchristian, but is Christian in substance, though not in form. It is pervaded by the spirit of justice and humanity, which are Christian. The First Amendment could not have originated in any pagan or Mohammedan country, but presupposes Christian civilization and culture. Christianity alone has taught men to respect the sacredness of the human personality as made in the image of God and redeemed by Christ, and to protect its rights and privileges, including the freedom of worship, against the encroachments of the temporal power and the absolutism of the state."— Id., p. 40.

Bancroft, in "History of the Formation of the Constitution," shows that this omission of the name of God from the Constitution was not an oversight, but that it was reverently left out for a wise purpose.

"The name of God was not accidentally left out of the Constitution. It was most reverentially left out of it by God-fearing men who

drew the instrument, because it had no business there. It was the purpose of the founders of our government to make it purely secular. It was a mere federation or union of states for purely worldly purposes. It did not claim to have any divine authority or sanction, but only the consent of the people. It did not es tablish any religion, because it guaranteed entire religious freedom. The name of God has no more business in the Constitution than it has in articles of copartnership, or in a promissory note. A promissory note would not be a whit more negotiable if it should contain a 'recognition of God.' This should be really true of the state government. Entire religious freedom requires it; for as soon as the word of God is recognized in the organic law of the state, there is the necessary implication that the state has religious authority, and this is incompatible with absolute freedom of conscience."

The effort put forth to place the name of God in the Constitution is simply a disguised attempt to unite church and state. The words of Madison in his famous memorial to the Virginia Assembly apply equally well here:

"Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance."

The Constitution of this great Republic is not hostile to any religion. It simply leaves the citizens free to worship or not to worship as conscience may dictate. Let no experiment be made at this time upon our liberties. It was the union of church and state that strengthened the hands of ecclesiastical butchers during the Dark Ages, and well-nigh extinguished the torch of liberty in the world. Let the church, instead of looking back to the days of persecution and darkness for methods of reform, look to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith.

济 济 远

MEN must be left free to live according to the dictates of their own consciences, so long as in so doing they do not trench upon the equal rights of their fellow men. It were vain to attempt more than this. Human governments cannot enforce the divine law. Religion and civil government should be kept separate.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small]

But instead of a new and chastened world, we find that we still have the same old world with all its cross-currents of conflicting interests, and personal, national, and racial selfishness deepened.

Instead of being better, the world is rather worse than before the war, not alone spiritually, but in every way. That this is so, is recognized by many, and is admitted, though reluctantly, by men who had hoped otherwise. Under the heading, "Spiritual Death' After the War," the Literary Digest of November 6, published the following:

"Hatreds engendered by the World War flourish everywhere with the vigor of vice, and every

about them. In Cape Town, General Smuts, premier of South Africa, who was the one living statesman at the Paris Peace Conference to utter a genuine Christian manifesto on behalf of righteousness and forgiveness of foes,' said to him:

"I met in Paris many Americans at the premier of South Africa, who was the one know how they feel. Never has there been so much hatred in the world - never have people everywhere hated one another so muchnever has hatred been so great and so deep. I know all about it. If the ministers of the

gospel would cease preaching so much about personal salvation and think of the salvation of the world, they would help deliver the world from the mess it is in; and not only save others but save themselves. The preachers should stop preaching theology, and with a

« FöregåendeFortsätt »