Christian Nation Vol. 18 1893 - Rparchives.org

Jan. 25,1893.EARLY HISTORY Ot THE COVENATERCHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES.E. H. B.Concluded.In 1800, two years after the organization ofPresbytery, she passed and enforced a law prohibitingthe holding of slaves by church members.Those already in the church holdingslaves were required to emancipate them andA FAMILY PAPER,thereafter no slave-holder could obtain admission.The rule of the church as to voting under value only as id represents the sentiments ofthe Constitution of the Uniled States was clear the people; and that the written constitutionfrom the very start. Although there may should only be the reflex of the unwritten one.have been some tendency to follow the general But a constitution is worth nothing unless itcustom of idolizing it as one of the greatest secures something, and to do this it ought toproducts of human wisdom, yet the law of the base itself on an immovable foundation andchurch never varied. Covenanters estimate not on that which may change at any time.the United States Constitution, not by its superiorityover the constitutions of other countries,but by its conformity to the standard ofGod's law, and finding it wanting they declineto sanction it in any way. They support thegovernment in all her rightful demands. Theypay taxes. They wield the sword if necessaryin the defense of right. But support the Constitution,that they cannot consistently do.Do you ask why? There are several seriousdefects in it.I. It has no fixedmoral basis. The Constitutionof the Uuited States acknowledges nohigher power than the people. To them itowes its authority and on them it rests. Thepeople ordained it. Necessarily then it followsthat the people must also interpret andenforce it. Now as long as the people, whichof course means a majority of the voters, arein favor of right, the Constitution willnaturally be interpreted in favor of the right.But suppose the majority changes to the otherFr'ench infidelity and the Christian, and likeside. Will not the Constitution just as naturallybe interpreted in favor of the wrong?it was made at the expense of truth. It is allall compromises between truth and falsehood,Some think that the Constitution ought to be But can morals bo separated from religion? very well to talk about making a Constituiioninterpreted according to the intentions of the Are they not in fact determined by it? Thewhich will allow all classes of people to takepart in the government, but how is it to leoriginal framers, but tbia is a mistake and if it morals of the Voudou worshiper, the Bhuddist.done? Is the Atheist any more conscientiouswere not, who is to tell what were their inten­otions? The fact is that the interpretation ofthe atheist are not the snme as those of thethe Constitution has changed with every generation.Who can tell what were the intentionsof the framers ot the Constitution in regardtoslavary? Did they intend to place certainrestrictions on it so that it might in time disappear?You may think so, but the slaveholderdid not and the laws he made when hehad power were not in accordance with suchan interpretation. The slavery question hasbeen settled for us, but not by the Constitution,and not by the people, for they had nointention of emancipating the slaves before thewar. Jehovah of Hosts settled it. But otherquestions are arising. For instance: Is theConstitution directly opposed to Christianity,or is it friendly, but simply failed to say so ?truth is, that when the framers of the Constitutionbased it on the will of the people theybuilt on the sand. They made a flexibledocumentwhich can be.has been,and will be bent andtwisted according to the ideas of the dominantparty. It changes as the people change andvirtually guarantees nothing and securesnothing. We know that the same objectionsmight be urged to a certain extent againstevery constitution; that a coustitution hasII. But the Constitution of the UnitedStates expressly declares that it has nothing todo with religion. Some one may say this isno defect. The state ought not to be mixedup with religion. Let ua see. Admitted thatthe spheres of activity of church and state arealtogether distinct and should never cross eachother; admitted also that it is better for thechurch to be left to her own exertions; yetis it so that the state has nothing to do with religion?Has the state then anything to dowith morals? Or is her stability in any waydependent on the character of his people ? Lethistory answer that question for you. Romefell, not so much because a horde of barbariansassailed her,—she had met and aud flungbackfar greater forces,— but because she Lad noforces with which to meet these barbarians.Her citizens bad sunk so low in the depths ofluxury and vice that they had lost even thestubborn courage which before rendered theminvincible. Her soldiers were mercenaries.Her people cowards. A nation's greatness is determinedby the moral characterof her people.Christians. Is there any other religion whichfurthers the physical as well as the spiritualwelfare of followers like Christianity does?Why then is it not the interest as well as theduty of the state to foster that which by makingits people contented and happy necessarilyconduces to its stability? We Covenantersmaintain that the state not only ought to fosterthe religion which produces the purest systemof morals as a means of lengthening herown existence, but she ought to have a religionof her own. We argue this if only from thefact that the state is made up of a mass of individuals.She canuot be released from fealtyto Christ as a mass of individuals unless theindividuals themselves are firstreleased. Is itnot a n absurdity to think that Christ demandsThe contest is now between the secularist and of his people subjection only as individuals,the Christian. Who is to decide? The peoplecertainly, unless again the Almighty inter­families or business corporations or nations,and the moment they band themselves intovenes in favor of the right. Have we any that inoment his authority ceases? We do notcertainty that they will decide aright? The assert that the nation has tbe same relations orthe same duties toward God as the individualdoes, but we do insist that the nation has ceritain relations and responsibilities towardChrist, and that Christ demands of the nation,as a nation, the same subjection which he requiresof individuals, and it has always beenone of the cardinal principles of the Covenanterchurch that it will acknowledge as legitimateno government whicb does not submititseif to Christ. But some one may take exceptionto my statement that the Constitution declaresitself to have no connection with religion.Now, admitted thai there are sonie Christianfeatures in and in the administration of tbe government,still I maintain that that is not thofault of the Constitution, for in the treaty withTripoli, a part of the Constitution, it is expresslyasserted that " this government, has no connectionwith Christianity." I nanother placeit declares "no religious test shall be requiredas a qualification for office," and in still anotherprescribes the form of oath to be taken by thoseentering on the duties of au office and does noteven insert the name of God. Now, admittedagain that in these points the Constitution doesviolence to the Christian history of the country,still that does not change the facts of the case.What Christian features we have are heirloomsfrom our Christian history, but as we are ruledby the Constitution, and not by history, we findthe Christian features of the government onlytoo rapidly disappearing.The question naturally arisFS, How does ticome that a Christian country adopted a Constitutionso deficient in these respects? Someanswer : It was a rebound from the evils of a,union of church and state. But this I thinkis not the true reason. I favor that given byDr. J. M. WiUson—"It was a designed compromisebetween the two great sections of thecountry." It was an attempt to suit all, theslaveholder and the free soiler (for there weresome of them at that early day, though perhapsuo* called by that name,) the advocate ofthan the Christian? If he cannot take an oathto the support of the Constitution which acknowledgesGod as the source of its auti ority,how can the Christian support it when it icdVesGod out? And so this compiomise had ils legitimateeffect. It gave extra power to theslaveholder, but it disfranchised the Abolitionist,It made it possible for the Atheist to holdoffice, and impossible for the Covenanter.III. The Constitution has legalized some ofthe greatest evils. This point is really only anecessary result of the firsttwo points I havementioned. The Constitution having no moralbasis other than the will of the people, and refusiugto have anything to do with religion, itsinfluence has naturally been toward a low toneot morals and contrary to religion. Humannature has a natural tendency downward. Itneeds all the moral force derived from theprecept of the Bible, the example of others,the hope of reward, and the fear of God's jus..lice to keep it on a level plane much more onan upward course, And it is with nations aswith individuals. The tendency is toward politicalcorruption, and to overcome tLiis the nationmust have a high moral standard for herselfand for those who bave rule under her.Christ foretold the outcome of rhe adoption of3.