An Incipient American Inquisition.
THE Sunday movement which is now in progress in California, and fast rising in several States in the East, will never meet the desire of its friends while it is confined to State action. In 1863 a company of ministers met in Xenia, Ohio, to consult in regard to securing a better observance of Sunday. They came to the conclusion that, with our system of "through lines" of railways, and other heavy interests in favor of Sunday traffic and travel, that State laws could never accomplish what they desired, and they then laid the foundation of the "National Reform Association," the avowed object of which is to procure such an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will authorize Congress to make laws for the enforcement of the "Christian Sabbath." Their declaration was, and is, very comprehensive. They say in their "platform" that they are laboring for an Amendment whereby "all Christian institutions, laws, and usages, may be placed upon an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land." And they were bold to declare that, when this shall be obtained, no person shall be eligible to office who violates the "Christian Sabbath"—the Sunday. Now the Constitution says there shall be no religious test of eligibility to office in the United States. The "Home Protectionists" of California set themselves in opposition to this provision of the National Constitution when they declared that no man must be elevated to office who would not conform to their ideas of Christian institutions. And yet they presume to call all those who do not agree with them rebels against the government! When this declaration was put forth by the "Amendment Party," all non-religionists took the alarm. They saw this Association fast growing in favor and influence. All the bishops in the American churches, many Presidents of Colleges, Doctors of Divinity, United States and State officers, were among its officers and supporters. The non-religious saw at once that, if the object of the Association should ever be accomplished, their rights and privileges in this "land of the free" would forever be at an end. Did this discovery lead the advocates of the Amendment to pause, and to consider that their proposed action would work disastrously to the civil and religious rights of large classes in the nation? Not at all. To the contrary they exulted in the prospect that such would be the case, and pressed more vigorously toward its accomplishment! We hold ourselves to be as far removed from sympathy with infidelity as is possible to be. Yet we are ever ready to confess that infidels have rights which Christians are bound to respect. The Evangelical Repository noticed the fears expressed by certain non-religious papers, and this notice was copied approvingly by the Christian Statesman, the organ of the "Amendment Party." For the benefit of our readers who are interested in the present controversy in California, we produce the notice of these Christian authorities as follows:— "These quotations seem to indicate one of our strongest weapons as a Christian people. Few are able to teach us more clearly on this point than our enemies. What they most dread is sure to be what we shall find to be most effective. Now scarcely anything sets the Index, or the Boston Investigator, or the Banner of Light, so quickly in trepidation, as a movement in favor of the religious amendment to the Constitution. This is the battery which, once established in its place, they consider almost impregnable. Ought not the hesitating, therefore, to ask themselves whether the use of such an instrumentality is not proper, and highly desirable, in the conflict with evil? Are not our opponents instructive, though unconscious, guides in this matter?" As an argument we cannot approve these remarks. Is it not a fact that the fears of these papers and of the people whom they represent are well founded? Have they not rights under our government which ought to be respected? Were the question one of the triumph of Christianity and of the downfall or restriction of infidelity, we would espouse the cause with all possible zeal. But the Association does not expect thereby to lessen infidelity and increase pure Christianity; they know full well that every step they take in that direction only confirms and hardens infidels in their unbelief. Thus, instead of converting the unconverted, they strengthen their infidelity and then deprive them of their Constitutional rights because they are infidels! And how do they propose to advance the cause of Christianity? By offering inducements to every office-seeker to profess Christianity as the only possible way to obtain office under the Government! Alas, for the blindness which has overtaken them! But for pointing out these facts, and giving the word of warning, we are denounced as enemies to Christianity, and as being the friends of "publicans and sinners." So be it. We shall proclaim the truth, "whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." Eze. 2:3-7. Let us step back a few centuries and suit this Christian argument to Italy or Spain, and all may see that it will prove as pertinent and logical, and as much to the furtherance of religion, as it appears in the Repository and the Statesman. Imagine we are quoting from an organ of "the church," thus:— "In regard to the efficiency of the holy Inquisition, few are able to teach us more clearly than our enemies. What they most dread is sure to be what we shall find most effective for the correction of heresy—the highest known crime. Scarcely anything sets the enemies of the church in such trepidation as a movement for the establishing of the Inquisition. This is the battery which, once firmly established, they consider almost impregnable. Ought not the hesitating therefore, to ask themselves whether the use of such an instrumentality is not proper, and highly desirable, in the church's conflict with evil? Are not our opponents instructive, though unconscious, guides in this matter?" The Repository and Statesman, or the California political religionist, cannot complain of the comparison, for was not the Inquisition established for the glory of God, and for the advancement of the cause of Christianity? Was not its design to prevent the increase of infidelity and heresy? Was it not that the governments of earth might thereby acknowledge their loyalty to Christ? which is now set forth as the object of the Religious amendment. And was not the burning of heretics, such as Jews, and all those who preferred the plain reading of the Bible to tradition, the very essence of piety, and therefore styled an auto de fe, or act of faith? Can the advocates of this civil-law religion claim any higher motive than was avowed by the advocates of the Inquisition? But they urge that their action has no such tendency. We can prove to the contrary. What mean the following remarks by a well-known advocate of this Amendment which will actually unite church and State in this country:— "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." These writers know that such laws would have little or no effect upon the Jews who do not, as a rule, religiously regard the Bible Sabbath. As a general thing their places of business are kept open on that day. It would seriously affect only those Christians who are conscientious in their observance of "the Sabbath of the Lord," to the exclusion of "the venerable day of the sun." And what mean the words of another of its adherents, more prominent than the writer just quoted, who said he would treat all who persisted in keeping the seventh day and not the Sunday, whether Jews or professed Christians, as he would treat insane people; let them alone while they were quiet and disturbed nobody, that is, did not work on Sunday, but by means of an asylum or otherwise would prevent their disturbing anybody if they proved to be troublesome? These are strong words to be spoken in advance by people professing such lamb-like principles as they do. See Rev. 13:11 and onward. The Romanists never spoke their intentions more plainly, even if such intentions were definitely formed, before the power was in their hands. And it is pertinent to add that Italy, Spain, and Austria, were Christian nations, and Russia is a Christian nation, and all as distinctively Christian as the American nation will be when these people shall succeed in the efforts which they are now putting forth, which will make a nominal adherence to Christianity necessary to political preferment. According to such writers, it is consistent with "the spirit of Christianity" to ignore the rights, not only of infidels, but of those whose conscientious convictions lead them to obey the fourth commandment of the decalogue just as it was spoken and written by Jehovah; just as it now stands, unaltered and unrepealed, in the statutes of Heaven. But it is the spirit of such a Christianity as made bonfires of Bibles because they tended to uphold heresy! such a Christianity as made "Saint Bartholomew's Day" a thought of terror, and lighted the fires of Smithfield. We have announced over and over again that we shall not oppose these demoralizing schemes except by the faithful presentation of the pure truth of God. And yet we say in this article, as we have said before, that such a deprivation of civil and religious rights as they contemplate, will bring great evil upon our nation. Do you ask why? It is because there are large classes of people who will not accept the situation in the same spirit, and meet it with the same means, that we shall. They have already announced that they stand ready to fight to preserve those rights which their fathers fought to establish. Thus the intention is formed and declared on both sides. Between them we stand neutral, so far as physical force is concerned. We cannot unite with the one party to invade the rights of any in their efforts to enforce an institution of tradition which is opposed to the commandment of God. We shall not unite with the other party to defend our rights with physical force. We sympathize with neither, and we cannot expect sympathy from either. We pity those who oppose this movement without the blessed hope of divine help and deliverance in the day of trial. Our hope is in the Mighty One, who will forever remember his covenant to them who keep his commandments.