Christian Nation Vol. 18 1893 - Rparchives.org

God we trust" on our sixty-five cent silver dollar.This religious acknowledgment stands at the head ofT h e Ghristian flatioD our charters and they also state that the purpose ofthe expedition was to spread the Gospel among theA Journal of Christian Civilization. Indians. It is not the purpose to depreciate the valuein evidence of these charters, most of whioh were annulledWEDNESDAY, MAECH 1, 1893,New Yokk,two centuries ago, but when we remember bywhom they were given, the real purpose of the companyand the time whioh has elapsed since they wereTerms: 5 cents a copy ; $ 1 50 a year, in advance the constitutions of the settlements, it does not seemEditor and Manager,John W. Pritchard.Associate Editors :Eev. W. J. Ooleman,Eev. 0. D. Trumbull, D. D.,Prof. J. M. Ooleman.Department Editors :Department of Missions, Eev. F. M. Foster.Sabbath School Lesson, Eev. T. P. Eobb.Primrary S. S. Lesson, Grace Hamilton George.Prayermeeting Topic, Eev. T. H. Acheson,The Week in Review, Prof. J, M. Littlejohn,Literary, Educational, Harriet S. Pritchard.Helpful Corner, Eev. Wm. Littlejohn.Mrs. Eev, E. J. George,Beaver Falls, Pa.Childreri 's Corner,Mrs, M, S. Gibson,New Castle, Pa,IS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION?the oustoms of the people. It is one cause of gratitudefor the past and of hopefulness for the futureIs this a Christian nation? This question is answeredaffirmatively in a recent decision of the Supremethat our national customs are, so generally, molded byCourt. On the other hand the St. Louis RepublicChristianity. But suppose that a nation followed,takes the negative side and denies that the Supremein general, the teaching of Christianity, would thatCourt was sound either in law or evidence, when itmake it a Christian natiou? It is not necessary toasserted this to be "a Christian nation." Which isexplain to the readers of the Chbistian Nation thatright? It is not a question which a Covenanter shouldGod has the same standard for nations as for individuals.The oolleciive body is judged by the samepass lightly by, for its answer affects our position- asa churoh.law as the private member. God allows no doubleThere are two positions from one or other ofstandard ot law. According to this law there is butwhioh the Supreme Court must defend it« statement;either that the nation is only a collection of individualsand not an organism, or that being an organic body itstill may be Christiau without confessing Christ. Thefirst positiou is clearly refuted by political science; thesecond, by the Bible.In order to understand the position of the Court, itwill be necessary to review the arguments which leadto the conclusion that this is "a Christian nation."As we recall the line of argument it may fairly besummed up under two heads,1. That which is f urnishea by documents. It ishardly worth while, unless for rhetorical purposes, torefer so far back as Columbus, so we may begin withthe Colonial Charters. By whom and for what purposeswere these charters »?iven? These charterswere not framed and adopted by the firstsettlers butwere given by tue king and would be much more valuableas showing the position of the English monarchthan of the colonists A more important fact is thatthese charters were not given to colonies whioh wereexpeoted to form a state in the future, but to tradingcompanies. The Stuarts who granted charters toNorth and South Virginia were not moved by a benevolentpurpose to estahlish a rival England across theAtlantic. The immediate object was trade, the ultimate,was money. The Crown had no different purposein view than in the chartering of the East IndiaCompany a few years before. Then we might ask, ifcertain expressions in American charters make thisnation Christian, would like expressions in the EastIndia charters prove India a Christian nation?As it was quite evident at many times that the Engishking did not hold his position by the grace of thepeople he began his state papers with thephrase " Kingby the grace of God," something like the motto " InCHEISIIAN NATION. Volume 18.that they would prove us to-day "a Christian nation."Another document brought forward, at times, to affirmthe position of the Court, is the Declaration ofIndependence in which Jefferson refers to "nature'sGod." Whom or what Jefferson meant by it is hardto determine. It oould not be the sovereign God, forhe spelled it "god," it oould not be the Christian'sGod, for Jefferson said that "Jesus Ohrist was tooshort a time on earth to formulate a eomplete systemof morals."Turning to the State constitutions, we findin someof them the name of God, b'jt this is not enough. Thewe must part company on "the reasons annexed."The Republic goes on to declare that ' 'It was neverJew would go that far and he is not a Christian. '' He intended that this should be a Christian nation."that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Fatherwhioh sent him." In some of the State constitutionsframed during the Eevolutionary period are found requirementsfor Christian legislators but none forChristian .legislation. In no oase is fcheauthority ofGod, of Christ, or of his law, acknowledged as bindingon government.2, The other line of evidence brought to supportthe claim that this is a Ohristian nation, is based onone way given in whioh an individnal can become aOhristian. He must confess Christ, not alone secretlyout hefore men. Leading what is called a moral lifedoes nofrmake a mana Christian, Will it, then, provea nation Christian to show it has Christiau oustoms?If a nation has an organic character, the argumentisworth as muoh in oue case as the other. Some holdthat confession of Christ is not necessary for man'ssalvation; these could logically claim it to be unnecessaryfor a nation.It is possible that this is the position taken by theSupreme Court, but there is another premise ouwhioh they may bass tbeir conclusion, Itis that thenation is not an organism at all, but is like a businesspartneship. This is the theory of individualism whiohwas systematized by Hobbes and Locke and madepopular by the writings of Eoussean, According toit the nation is a firm In whioh the members contracttogether to carry out certain purposes. If this be atrue theory, there is no need for a national confessionof Jesus Ohrist to make us a Christian nation.That the members of the Court still hold the contracttheory of the nation is not at all improbable.Though individualism is defunct as a theory in philosophy,it is still a working principle in political life.Ithas so permeated every line of thought and actionthat it will take time for its virus to work out of thesocial system. Political Economists from Adam Smithalmost up to the present time take the "isolatedman," moved only by selflshness, as the subject oftheir study. Among students of law the conservativetendency is even more marked. Like a Chinaman,what they want is a precedent, and this causes themto ndhere to past ideas. This natural tendency is em.phasized by the study of Blackstone whose politicalphilosophy, so far as he had any, was individualistic,and as he wrote over a century ago and his ideas wereof tha century which preceded him, it makes his conclusionssomewhat antiquated in the present, Bulthere is hope even for the legal fraternity. ProfessorBurgess has published a work entitled "PoliticalScience and Constitutional liw " whose introductorypages give one of the best statements which has yetbeen written of the organic conception of the state.There are, then, two propositions on which theCourt may seek to sustain the decision that this " Is aChristian nation." First, on the theory that the nationis not an organism but a partnership and becomesChristian through confession of Christ by individualmerabers; seoond, that it is an organism bntmay be Christian without any formal confession ofChrist. We do not believe that either of these positionsis according to the "law and the evidence."But while we are willing to go with our esteemedcotemporary so far as the Court decision is concernedNow unless the Republic has had some later communicationfrom the Puritans than is given to less favoredmortals, we venture to say that it is mistaken.The editor of the Republic was not at Plymouth norat Boston at that time, nor, perhaps, any of his relatives.It may be part of the eternal plan that thisshould become, at some time, a Cnristian nation; andif this be the fact the opposition of St, Louis eventhough it should make peace with Chicago, as Pilateand Herod did on a former occasion, even this will notprevent it from coming to pass.He says it was not intended that any Jew or anyheathen should be compelled to ask any number ofChristians for toleration in A.merica, If the Republichad said it had not been necessary, he would havibeen correct. It is toleration for Christianity that wewant. One would suppose from the zeal shown bysecular papers in insisting on such respeot for theconscience of the Jews and the heathen as will preventthe passage of Christian laws, that the editorsbelonged to one or other of these favored classes.What about the oonscienoe of Christians? Shall ithave any respect? It is a rather novel idea perhaps,but is it not about time that some one should make aplea for the Christian's conscience? Even Christiansthemselves insist that we should not put the name inour Constitution whioh was written on the cross becausethe Jew could not swear to it without violatinghis conscience. It would be accepting Christ. If theJew cannot swear to the Constitution with Christ'sname m, how can the Christian swear to that documentif Christ's name be left out ? If the first is acceptingChrist, is not the second denying Him?What about the Christian's conscience? We hopethat the time may soon come when Christians willhave as muoh respect for their own conscience as theyhave for that of the Jew, We may be egotistic, butwe have reached that position now.The Republic relies solely on the power of truth.What it meaus is, that no laws should be made tocarry out its provi-dons and no violent means suoh asmagistrates and constables brought into use Truthis a g )od thing to rely on. We can imagine 'a thiefcoming into the sanctum of the editor of the Republicwhen he is engaged in writing an article on personalliberiy. The* thief gathers up the editor's newcoat and hat The editor sees him bnt says in hisheart that he is going to "Eely on truth," and go-:son with his article, at least this is the consistentthing for him to do.Why should the eighth command be enforced by policeany more than the fourth ? Both belonged to thesame code and were given to the same people at thesame time. One has just aa good a right to be enforcedby the police iis the other. The fact seems tobe that men are willing to "Eely on the truth," whenthe property of others is being taken, but t) protecttheir own they want truth plus a constable. It is allright to steal from God, but you must not steal frommen, or we will send you to jail. It makes all thedifference whose ox is gored. Some are very slow toforgive of have liberty to perfect Ehime do The their bring right, is " Republic law their Lord. religious does in all to of St. pf-rsons enemies serve not liberty. Louis. sajB: liberty." mean God, and who the "The Eeligious and classes readily kind This it truest is into they is forgive liberty true, harmony have Christianity duty the but " of liberty Over enemies the religions with we state the the to