"_Resolved_, That it is the right and duty of the United States, as a
nation settled by Christians, a nation with Christian laws and usages,
and with Christianity as its greatest social force, to acknowledge
itself in its written Constitution, to be a Christian nation.
"_Resolved_, That, as the disregard of sound theory always leads to
mischievous practical results, so in this case the failure of our nation
to acknowledge, in its organic laws, its relation to God and his moral
laws, as a Christian nation, has fostered the theory that government has
nothing to do with religion but to let it alone, and that consequently
State laws in favor of the Sabbath, Christian marriage, and the use of
the Bible in the schools, are unconstitutional.
"_Resolved_, That we recognize the necessity of complete harmony between
our written constitution and the actual facts of our national life; and
we maintain that tho true way to eflect this undoubted harmony is not to
expel the Bible and all idea of God and religion from our schools,
abrogate laws enforcing Christian morality, and abolish all devout
observances in connection with government, but to insert an explicit
acknowledgment of God and the Bible in our fundamental law.
"_Resolved_, That the proposed religious amendment, so far from tending
to a union of Church and State, is directly opposed to such union,
inasmuch as it recognizes the nation's own relations to God, and insists
that the nation should acknowledge these relations for itself, and not
through the medium of any church establishment."
Mr. F.E. Abbott, editor of the _Index_, Toledo, O., who was present at
the foregoing Convention, and presented a protest against its aims and
efforts, says of those who stand at the head of the movement:--
"We found them to be so thoroughly sincere and earnest in their
purpose that they did not fear the effect of a decided but
temperate protest. This fact speaks volumes in their praise, as men
of character and convictions. We saw no indication of the artful
management which characterizes most conventions. The leading
men--Rev. D. McAllister, Rev. A.M. Milligan, Prof. Sloane, Prof.
Stoddard, Prof. Wright, Rev. T.P. Stephenson--impressed us as able,
clear-headed, and thoroughly honest men; and we could not but
conceive a great respect for their motives and their intentions. It
is such qualities as these in the leaders of the movement that give
it its most formidable character. They have definite and consistent
ideas; they perceive the logical connection of these ideas, and
advocate them in a very cogent and powerful manner; and they
propose to push them with determination and zeal. Concede their
premises, and it is impossible to deny their conclusions; and since
these premises are axiomatic truths with the great majority of
Protestant Christians, the effect of the vigorous campaign on which
they are entering cannot be small or despicable. The very respect
with which we were compelled to regard them only increases our
sense of the evils which lie germinant in their doctrines; and we
came home with the conviction that religious liberty in America
must do battle for its very existence hereafter. The movement in
which these men are engaged has too many elements of strength to be
contemned by any far-seeing liberal. Blindness or sluggishness
to-day means slavery to-morrow. Radicalism must pass now from
thought to action, or it will deserve the oppression that lies in
wait to overwhelm it."
As to the probability of the success of this movement, there is at
present some difference of opinion. While a very few pass it by with a
slur as a mere temporary sensation of little or no consequence, it is
generally regarded as a work of growing strength and importance, both by
its advocates and opposers. Petitions and remonstrances are both being
circulated with activity, and shrewd observers, who have watched the
movement with a jealous eye, and heretofore hoped it would amount to
nothing, now confess that it "means business." No movement of equal
magnitude of purpose has ever sprung up and become strong, and secured
favor so rapidly as this. Indeed, none of equal magnitude has ever been
sprung upon the American mind, as this aims to remodel the whole
framework of our government, and give to it a strong religious cast--a
thing which the framers of our Constitution were careful to exclude from
it. They not only ask that the Bible, and God, and Christ, shall be
recognized in the Constitution, but that it shall indicate this as "a
Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and
usages, in our government on an undeniable legal basis in the
fundamental law of the nation."
Of course, appropriate legislation will be required to carry such
amendments into effect, and somebody will have to decide what are
"Christian laws and institutions." From what we know of such movements
in the past in other countries, and of the temper of the churches of
this, and of human nature when it has power suddenly conferred upon it,
we look for no good from this movement. From a lengthy article in the
Lansing _State Republican_ in reference to the Cincinnati Convention, we
take the following extract:--
"Now there are hundreds and thousands of moral and professedly
Christian people in this nation to-day who do not recognize the
doctrine of the Trinity, do not recognize Jesus Christ the same as
God. And there are hundreds and thousands of men and women who do
not recognize the Bible as the revelation of God. The attempt to
make any such amendment to the Constitution would be regarded by a
large minority, perhaps a majority, of our nation as a palpable
violation of liberty of conscience. Thousands of men, if called
upon to vote for such an amendment, would hesitate to vote against
God, although they may not believe that the amendment was necessary
or that it is right; and such men would either vote affirmatively
or not at all. In every case, such an amendment would be likely to
receive an affirmative vote, which would by no means indicate the
true sentiment of the people. And the same rule would hold good in
relation to the adoption of such an amendment by Congress or by the
Legislatures of three-quarters of the States. Men who make politics
a trade would hesitate to record their names against the proposed
Constitutional Amendment, advocated by the leaders of the great
religious denominations of the land, and indorsed by such men as
Bishop Simpson, Bishop McIlvaine, Bishop Eastburn, President
Finney, Prof. Lewis, Prof. Seelye, Bishop Huntington, Bishop
Kerfoot, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Cuyler, and many other divines who are
the representative men of their respective denominations."
Not only the representative men of the churches are pledged to this
movement, but governors, judges, and many of the most eminent men of the
land are working for it. Who doubts the power of the "representative men
of the denominations" to rally the strength of their denominations to
sustain this work at their call? We utter no prophecy of the future; it
is not needed. Events transpire in these days faster than our minds are
prepared to grasp them. Let us heed the admonition to "watch!" and, with
reliance upon God, prepare for "those things which are coming on the
earth."
But it may be asked how the Sunday question is to be affected by the
proposed Constitutional Amendment. Answer: The object, or, to say the
least, one object of this amendment is to put the Sunday institution on
a legal basis, and compel its observance by the arm of the law. At the
National Convention held in Philadelphia, Jan. 18 and 19, 1871, the
following resolution was among the first offered by the Business
Committee:--
"_Resolved_, That, in view of the controlling power of the
Constitution in shaping State, as well as national, policy, it is
of immediate importance to public morals, and to social order, to
secure such an amendment as will indicate that this is a Christian
nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages in
our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law
of the nation, specially those which secure a proper oath, and
which protect society against blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, and
polygamy."
By Sabbath-breaking is meant nothing else but Sunday-breaking. In a
convention of the friends of Sunday, assembled Nov. 29, 1870, in New
Concord, Ohio, the Rev. James White is reported to have said: "The
question [of Sunday observance] is closely connected with the National
Reform Movement; for until the government comes to know God and honor
his law, we need not expect to restrain Sabbath-breaking corporations."
Here again the idea of the legal enforcement of Sunday observance stands
uppermost.
Once more: The Philadelphia _Press_ of Dec. 5, 1870, stated that some
Congressmen, including Vice-president Colfax, arrived in Washington by
Sunday trains, Dec. 4, on which the _Christian Statesman_ commented as
follows (we give italics as we find them):--
"1. _Not one of those men ivho thus violated the Sabbath is fit to
hold any official position in a Christian nation_. * *
"He who violates the Sabbath may not steal because the judgment of
society so strongly condemns theft, or because he believes that
honesty is the best policy; but tempt him with the prospect of
concealment, or the prospect of advantage, and there can be no
reason why he who robs God will not rob his neighbor also. For this
reason, the Sabbath law lies at the foundation of morality. Its
observance is an acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of God over
us.
"2. _The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin_, because the
nation hath not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule
for our public servants, 'We charge you to serve us in accordance
with the higher law of God.' These Sabbath-breaking railroads,
moreover, are corporations created by the State, and amenable to
it. The State is responsible to God for the conduct of these
creatures which it calls into being. It is bound, therefore, to
restrain them from this as from other crimes, and any violation of
the Sabbath, by any corporation, should work immediate forfeiture
of its charter. And the Constitution of the United States, with
which all State legislation is required to be in harmony, should be
of such a character as to prevent any State from tolerating such
infractions of fundamental moral law.
"3. Give us in the National Constitution the simple acknowledgment
of the law of God as the supreme law of nations, and _all the
results indicated in this note will ultimately be secured_. Let no
one say that the movement does not contemplate sufficiently
practical ends."
From all this, we see the important place the Sabbath question is to
hold in this movement--the important place it even now holds in the
minds of those who are urging it forward. Let the amendment called for
be granted, "and all the results indicated in this note," says the
writer, "will ultimately be secured;" that is, individuals and
corporations will be restrained from violating the Sunday observance.
The acknowledgment of God in the Constitution may do very well as a
banner under which to sail; but the practical bearing of the movement
relates to the compulsory observance of the first day of the week.
Even now the question is agitated why the Jew should be allowed to
follow his business on the first day after having observed the seventh.
The same question is equally pertinent to all seventh-day keepers. A
writer signing himself "American," in the Boston _Herald_ of Dec. 14,
1871, said:--
"The President in his late message in speaking of the Mormon
question, says, 'They shall not be permitted to break the law under
the cloak of religion.' This, undoubtedly, meets the approval of
every American citizen, and I wish to cite a parallel case, and
ask: Why should the Jews of this country be allowed to keep open
their stores on the Sabbath under the cloak of their religion while
I, or any other true American, will be arrested and suffer
punishment if we do the same thing? If there is a provision made
allowing a few to conduct business on the Sabbath, what justice and
equality can there be in any such provision, and why should it not
be stopped at once?"
And this question, we apprehend, will be very summarily decided, when
once the Consitutional Amendment has been secured.
At a Ministerial Association of the M.E. church held in Healdsburg,
Cal., April 26-28, 1870, Rev. Mr. Trefren, of Napa, speaking of S.D.A.
ministers, said, "I predict for them a short race. What we want is law
in the matter." Then, referring to the present movement for a law, he
added, "And we will have it, too; and when we get the power into our
hands, we will show these men what their end will be."
From a work recently published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication,
entitled "The Sabbath," by Chas. Elliott, Professor of Biblical
Literature and Exegesis in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of the
North West, Chicago, Ill., we take this paragraph:--
"But it may be asked, Would not the Jew be denied equality of
rights by legislation protecting the Christian Sabbath and ignoring
the Jewish? The answer is, We are not a Jewish but a Christian
nation; therefore, our legislation must be conformed to the
institutions and spirit of Christianity. This is absolutely
necessary from the nature of the case."
There is no mistaking the import of this language: No matter if the Jew
does not secure equal rights with others. We are not a Jewish nation,
but a Christian; and all must be made to conform to what the majority
decide to be Christian institutions. This affects all who observe the
seventh day as much as the Jews. And we apprehend it will not be a
difficult matter to lead the masses, whose prejudices incline them in
this direction, to believe that it is "absolutely necessary" that all
legislation must take such a form, and cause them to act accordingly.
Several years since, Dr. Durbin of the _Christian Advocate and Journal_;
gave his views on this subject as follows:--
"I infer, therefore, that the civil magistrate may not be called
upon to enforce the observance of the Sabbath [Sunday] as required
in the spiritual kingdom of Christ; but when Christianity becomes
the moral and spiritual life of the State, the State is bound
through her magistrates to prevent the open violation of the holy
Sabbath, as a measure of self-preservation. She cannot, without
injuring her own vitality and incurring the divine displeasure, be
recreant to her duty in this matter."
At a meeting held at Saratoga Springs, Aug. 12, 1860, ex-president
Fillmore said that "while he deemed it needful to legislate cautiously
in all matters connected with public morals, and to avoid coercive
measures affecting religion, the right of every citizen to a day of rest
and worship could not be questioned, and laws securing that right should
be enforced."
And the _Christian Statesman_ of Dec. 15, 1871, speaking of the general
disregard of the Sabbath [Sunday] in the arrangements for welcoming the
Grand Duke Alexis, says:--
"How long will it be before the Christian masses of this country
can be roused to enact a law compelling their public servants to
respect the Sabbath?"
A very marked and rapid change is taking place in public opinion
relative to the proposed religious amendment of the Constitution. We
have learned of instances of men who were at first openly hostile to the
movement, now giving their influence for its advancement, and clamoring
loudly for a Sunday law. And some who at first regarded it with
indifference, are now becoming its warm partisans. As a sample of this
change of feeling, the following paragraph from the _Christian Press_ of
Jan, 1872, may be presented. The _Christian Press_ is the organ of the
Western Book and Tract Society, Cincinnati, Ohio, and its editor,
speaking of the National Association above referred to, says:--
"When this Association was formed, while we were prepared to bid it
God speed, we did not then feel that there was any pressing need
for the object sought; and as our mission was specially directed to
the Christianizing, enlightening and elevating, the masses of the
people, we have said little in our columns on the subject, being
assured that if the people are right, it is easy to set the
government right. The late combined efforts, however, of various
classes of our citizens to exclude the Bible from our schools,
repeal our Sabbath laws, and divorce our government entirely from
religion, and thus make it an atheistic government--for every
government must be for God or against him, and must be administered
in the interests of religion and good morals, or in the interests
of irreligion and immorality--have changed our mind, and we are now
prepared to urge the necessity for an explicit acknowledgment in
the National Constitution of the authority of God and the supremacy
of his law, as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments."
With the anti-Sunday movements of the present day, considering their
associations, and the manner and object in and for which they are
carried forward, we have no sympathy. They aim at utter no-Sabbathism,
freedom from all moral restraint, and all the evils of unbridled
intemperance--ends which we abhor with all the strength of a moral
nature quickened by the most intense religious convictions. And while
the indignation of the batter portion of the community will be aroused
at the want of religious principle and the immorality attending the
popular anti-Sunday movement, a little lack of discrimination, by no
means uncommon, will on account of our opposition to the day, though we
oppose it on entirely different ground, easily associate us with the
class above-mentioned, and subject us to the same odium.
Meanwhile, some see the evils involved in this movement, and raise the
voice of alarm. The _Christian Union_, Jan., 1871, said:
"The friends of the measure are not likely ever to agree among
themselves. The Convention which met in Philadelphia on the 18th
inst. to consider this subject, refused to accept a phraseology
which simply recognizes the Deity, and insisted upon including in
the emendation the name of Jesus Christ as well. A party, in behalf
of the Holy Spirit, which is so conspicuously slighted, will be the
next in order; and then the way will be open for a proposition to
recognize the 'Vicegerent of Christ on earth,' as the true source
of power among the nations! If the proposed amendment is anything
more than a bit of sentimental cant, it is to have a _legal_
effect. It is to alter the status of the non-Christian citizen
before the law. It is to affect the legal oaths and instruments,
the matrimonial contracts, the sumptuary laws, &c., &c., of the
country. This would be an outrage on natural right."
The Janesville (Wis.) _Gazette_, at the close of an article on the
proposed amendment, speaks thus of the effect of the movement, should it
succeed:--
"But independent of the question as to what extent we are a
Christian nation, it may well be doubted whether, if the gentlemen
who are agitating this question should succeed, they would not do
society a very great injury. Such measures are but the initiatory
steps which ultimately lead to _restrictions of religious freedom_,
and to commit the government to measures which are as foreign to
its powers and purposes as would be its action if it should
undertake to determine a disputed question of theology."