GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION (ELDER FA CHICK)

It is fascinating how little things changed from 1896 America.  Some are still trying to make America into a "Christian Nation" - ed.

In our editorial last week, we referred to the fact that an effort was on foot among a large class of fanatical and priestly religionists. In the country to introduce an amendment into the Constitution. Of these United States, acknowledging the God of heaven as the God whom this land and this nation profess to serve. This week we desire as briefly and soberly as possible to speak of this subject because we believe that the very life of our religious liberties is involved in it. We said that we desired to write soberly, but we must confess that it is hard for us to express 1 ourselves calmly upon this matter. It is hard because our civil and religious liberties were bequeathed to us by our fathers under the blessing of God or by this movement assailed.

We desire to write upon this subject now because, in the week beginning December 9th, a Congress was held in Baltimore in the name of “Moral reform” In which among other things the need of making this name a. Christian nation was insisted upon, and as a means thereto. The one essential thing that was said was that the constitution of our country would be amended by an article acknowledging God.

It seems upon the face of it an unusual and strange thing for a professedly Christian minister to criticize and oppose such an apparently good and commendable movement. But it is just because we occupy such a responsible position that we feel bound as a servant of God and in the name of true Christianity, to race a protest against such false views of the religion of Jesus as are seen in such a proposition as this. As the God of heaven disappears out of the hearts and lives of the nation at large, more and more it is thought, more needful to put His name in the constitution of our country. On the same principle, we suppose that put a cross upon the place of worship when cross-bearing is not known among the people who worship there. Godlessness and pleasure-seeking among the churches of the day are compensated by putting God into the constitution and across gilded wood or bronze upon the temple where men meet for worship.

We also call attention to this subject because it has been one of the. Peculiar and crowning glories of those who have borne the name of Baptists in all ages, that they have stood against kingcraft and priestcraft, and for the rights of each individual conscience in all spiritual matters. Baptist Faith. Is that there is not, nor is it possible that there could ever be such a thing as a Christian nation. Not even if every man, woman, and child in a nation were personally believers in Jesus and were truly his followers would that nation be a Christian nation. The only body of people that can ever be entitled to be called a Christian nation is the body of true believers scattered among all the nations around the globe. The believing people of God made one in Christ out of every nation, and kindred and tongue are called in the Scripture a holy nation, and such a designation can of right belong to no other body of people. If it is therefore lawful at all to use the term a Christian nation, it could not scripturally be used to describe any earthly government, however good it might be, and however much pure religion might have spread there. But only the Church of God, the Church of the firstborn, which is in every land made-up of those who love and serve God.

With all who are counted among believers, God deals separately and personally. In all matters pertaining to spiritual life and worship, Baptist faith, and teaching always have been that no man must meddle with another. No man shall have dominion over another man's faith. Even an apostle said not that we have dominion over your faith. Another said We are not Lords over God's heritage. Any effort to compel the faith of men, while utterly abortive, so far as any real dominion is concerned, is yet exceedingly. Fruitful of evil in various ways, chiefly, it may be said, by multiplying the number of false professors and hypocrites in the world. Forced outward conformity is at the expense of honesty and truth among the masses. A religion in which the government interferes, compelling all to subscribe to it. It's responsible for weakening the public conscience beyond anything else of which we can conceive. Baptists, Therefore, in the interests of both religion and public morals, have always contended that the only part government can have in the matter is to let religion entirely alone, and simply protect every man in his religion or in his irreligion. The irreligious man must not seek to coerce the religious man, and the religious man must exercise no compulsion over the irreligious man. Baptists have ever considered this an essential part of their faith.

The priests of a carnal religion who look “every one of his gain from his quarter” can very easily see how it will be advantageous for the system which they uphold to use the arm of the government. To compel all to subscribe to its tenants and support (financially, especially) it claims. But the followers of a pure, spiritual religion know that no alliance with an earthly power can advantage it. One wit. Therefore they desire it not, as they know, that he who seeks for the “horses and Chariots of Egypt” shall find it a broken staff, which shall Pierce his hand, and moreover, that it is a casting of God one side, and a rejection of his power to help, Therefore they must protest against it, as long as life and speech are left them.

Perhaps it may be said, We admit and believe all this, but what has this to do with the proposed amendment admitting the name of God into the Constitution? We answer, much every way. The publicly announced object of the advocates of this amendment is to make this a professedly Christian nation. It involves the idea that every man who dwells here and calls himself a citizen shall be compelled to sign himself a believer in God, or a Christian, though he may in fact. Be an infidel. If, as a citizen, he aspires to office, and is chosen thereto, ere he can serve his country in that capacity, he must make an oath to support that part of the Constitution as well as all others. He must either hold no office or he must perjure himself. Surely this in itself is sufficient to array every honest man, who was not a priest-ridden fanatic, against such a movement. Surely that cannot be good and wholesome, which puts a premium upon perjury.

Again, This proposed amendment is but the thin edge of the wedge which, if once introduced, will, upon one pretext or another, gradually be driven home, until it splits asunder the whole fabric of our religious and civil liberty. Our only safety, as Old School or Primitive Baptists, lies in the victory of the principles for which we have always contended, and which, on our beloved country, have had therefore prevailed. Let this proposed amendment be once adopted, and the Prince of Darkness will rejoice, and his followers on earth below the earth will be jubilant. There will be another victory scored against pure and undefiled religion. Another rivet will have been forged to the chain with which Satan is want to bind and enslave the consciousness of men. In the triumph of false religious zeal, a blow will have been struck at the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the steps are not many, nor very long, from this first success to a complete uniting of church and state, with all that such a marriage involves. What a false and unhallowed union, that of church and state has always proved itself to be! And the offspring of this union has been still more ungodliness, blasphemy, persecution, hypocrisy, and otherworldliness.

We notice in the account given of the sessions of this Congress held in Baltimore, that several speeches were made by “Reverend” gentlemen in earnest support of this movement. We saw but one ray of light in all that was recorded in this matter. After two or three addresses had been made, Doctor Fulton, whose Tabernacle this meeting was held, and who had been chosen to preside, arose and said, “I have accepted an invitation to preside over tonight's meeting, but if I thought for an instant. That the gentleman who has spoken represented the views of this gathering my own feelings and my conscience would compel me to decline to take any part in it”. Doctor Fulton was informed that they were but the individual views of the speaker, and professed himself satisfied; But so far as we read, no one else uttered one word of protest, and we do not doubt that Doctor Fulton stood almost alone in this gathering. We wish to give honor where honor is due, and so we mentioned Doctor Fulton's protest. But weakened, but say that he would have been still nearer right had he refused to take any further part in the proceedings. The gathering was evidently as a body, in favor of the above-named amendment to the Constitution.

We wish, before closing the briefly refer to some of the arrangements urged in favor of this amendment, And first it was said that “God willed it”. We have not learned that the speaker adduced any proof of this remarkable assertion. So far as we were able to gather this assertion. Stands unsupported by any attempt by the speaker to prove it. We might be content to call for the proof, sure that it will not be found within the compass of the New Testament, nor yet in the result of such alliances of church and state in the past. But we desire to make one or two further statements. If the speaker meant that God wielded his eternal and everlasting decree, then it is sure to come to pass, regardless of the approval or disapproval of men. But we notice that men of the speakers class generally have but little use for, and little faith in, a God of sovereign power and eternal decrees. Therefore we acquit the speaker of meaningless. But if he meant that God wills it in the sense that He commands men to obey Him, that is, that he has commanded it, we are persuaded that he will seek far and long before he will find any such command in the New Testament.

A second reason why the speaker favored the proposed amendment was “We want an expression of our national allegiance to the King of Kings”. The Speaker may have no higher conception of what true allegiance to the King of Kings means than his words imply, But Baptists and every truly heaven-born soul know that allegiance to God means a real love to him and reverence for him, such as his produced in the heart alone by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Viewed in this light, such an amendment subscribed to by the nation would be a false profession by the large majority of the people. We have no such thing as a national allegiance to God. The proposed amendment, if adopted, would be a lie. All unrenewed men. Are, according to the word of God, godless? Scripturally speaking, everyone who does not believe, personally and savingly in the Lord Jesus Christ is a heathen. No natural man renders any allegiance to God. If there be any unrenewed men in our land, every time they took an oath to support the Constitution, they would be guilty of perjury. Most emphatically, we do not want a lie in our Constitution, especially a religious lie. There is a God who reigns, but there is no such thing as natural allegiance to him. Thank God, he has so wrought in the hearts of some, that they gladly acknowledge his dominion. But such as these do not wish to put a lie on the lips of the godless, compelling them to say that they serve God when they do not.

A third reason given was this, “Political acknowledgment of Christ is the only means of freeing ourselves from the charge that we are dishonoring Him”. This certainly is a broad statement. This “is the only means”. Putting God into the Constitution will then, in the eyes of men, and we suppose also in the eye of God, free us from the charge of dishonoring him as a nation. What a splendid solution this is to the public conscience! What is a universal panacea for all? The spiritual ills designation is heir to! Put the name of God in the constitution, and straight away we shall be honorable in the sight of God, and all our reproach will be washed away. This is the only means to remember! Lying, stealing, oppression, and National injustice may continue if only we adopt this amendment. Jehovah will see his name in the Constitution and will be so pleased that he will not notice such peccadillos as are named above. This “is the only means of freeing ourselves from the charge that we are dishonoring him” as a nation. Or does the speaker mean that we as a nation are so just, honest, merciful, and truthful? That, Like the young man in the gospel, we lack but one thing? If so, we pity his conception of these virtues, England, Italy, Germany, and Russia, are all professionally Christian nations. In them all, church and state are more or less closely blended. Are they as nations, free from the charge of dishonoring God? It would seem so, according to the above astonishing statement. New settings. Or does he mean that we shall thereby free ourselves from this charge in the sight of men? We reply to this, put the name of God into the constitution, 100 times, and as long as the nation is infested with the 1000 evils that all see, And that is needless to enumerate here, So far from putting away our reproach, the use of that name will but intensify our shame, and make us still more of a byword and reproach among all right-thinking men. We should be putting on the live livery of heaven to serve the devil. Old religion! What crimes have been wrought in your name? And because done in your name were counted virtues! God forbid that we shall ever so misuse the name of God whom believers reverence and worship! Let the meaning of the speaker have been what it may, There is not the shadow of a justification for his language.

A fourth argument that we noticed was this, “While the church does not need the state, the state does need the church.” Right here we see the outcome, as it were, in the minds of those who were speakers on this occasion. Church and State must intermarry. This is the gold aimed at. The proposed amendment to the Constitution is but the first step. If adopted, the consummation of that Union will surely follow. All that would remain to be done would be a mere matter of detail; And according to the above-named assertion of the Church, would be the superior. “The church does not need the state, but the state does need the church.” It need only be said that when the church gets ready to wed the state, she becomes a prostitute, void of shame before God or man. She has forsaken her lawful husband for another, and her virtue and her glory have forever departed. Let us notice that the whole force of the statement that we are here controverting is in fact. Get The speaker was advocating a legal union of church and state. He did not argue that the state needs honest, true, brave, God-fearing men, for citizens, and to sit in the halls of council, and make and administer her laws, Which no man would be insane enough to dispute; But the argument is for a. State Church, in which the church shall be the superior. If we were here riding upon political ground, we should say that such men were traitors to their government; But as we are writing upon the religious side of the question, we will say to such men are the enemies of the cross, and, Judas light, would traitorously betray their Lord with a kiss for a reward.

Before the church can consent to be wedded to the state by any such legal union, she must have forsaken her true husband, and become filled with all sorts of unholy lusts; And deeds, added to the natural evils inherent in the state, will bring it in a very. Carnival of Folly, vice, and Religion under the garb of Religion itself. As hypocrisy is worse than open sin, so, this unholy alliance will result in greater evil to both the Church and the State.

We do not fear that the true Church of Jesus Christ will yield her consent to such a move; But some true, God-fearing men and women may be ensnared by the spacious reasonings of men. Therefore, we have felt it incumbent upon us to do what we may to warn the unwary through sincere-hearted people of God in this matter. We do not deem any apology Needful, except for the imperfect manner in which we have tried to set these matters forth. We may in the future have cause to consider the subject again. Meanwhile, we urge upon all our brethren to be firm and faithful in our testimony against this proposed marriage of Church and state.

FA chick.