The United States in the Light of Prophecy.
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 partizans. 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 the 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—evils which we abhor with all the strength of a moral nature quickened by the most intense religious convictions. And while the indignation of the better portion of the community will be aroused at the lack of religious principle and the immorality attending the popular anti-Sunday movements, 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 amendment the name of Jesus Christ as well. A party, in behalf of the Holy Spirit, which is so conspicuously slighted, will be next in order; and then the way will be open for a proposition to recognize the ‘Viceregent 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 its action be if it should undertake to determine a disputed question of theology.” The Weekly Alta Californian of San Francisco, March 12, 1870, said:— “The parties who have been recently holding a convention for the somewhat novel purpose of procuring an amendment to the Constitution of the United States recognizing the Deity, do not fairly state the case when they assert that it is the right of a Christian people to govern themselves in a Christian manner. If we are not governing ourselves in a Christian manner, how shall the doings of our government be designated? The fact is that the movement is one to bring about in this country that union of church and State which all other civilized nations are now trying to dissolve.” The N. Y. Independent, Feb., 1870, spoke of the movement as having the same chance of success that a union of church and State would have. The Champlain Journal speaking of incorporating the religious principle into the Constitution and its effect upon the Jews, said:— “However slight, it is the entering wedge of church and State. If we may cut off ever so few persons from the right of citizenship on account of difference of religious belief, then with equal justice and propriety may a majority at any time dictate the adoption of still further articles of belief, until our Constitution is but the text-book of a sect beneath whose tyrannical sway all liberty of religious opinion will be crushed.” For a union of church and State, strictly so-called, we do not look. In place of this we apprehend that what is called “the image,” a creation as strange as it is unique, comes in—not a State controlled by the church, and the church in turn supported by the State, but an ecclesiastical establishment empowered to enforce its own decrees by civil penalties; which in all its practical bearings amounts to exactly the same thing. The direct aim of the movement is undoubtedly a union of church and State; a result which it will so nearly accomplish as to secure, by way of compromise, the erection of the image. Some one may now say, As you expect this movement to carry, you must look for a period of religious persecution in this country; nay, more, you must take the position that all the saints of God are to be put to death; for the image is to cause that all who will not worship it shall be killed. There would, perhaps, be some ground for such a conclusion, were we not elsewhere informed that in this dire conflict God does not abandon his people to defeat, but grants them a complete victory over the beast, his image, his mark, and the number of his name. Rev. 15:2. We further read respecting this earthly power, that he causeth all to receive a mark in their right hand or their foreheads; yet chapter 20:4 speaks of some who do not receive the mark nor worship the image. If, then, he could cause all to receive the mark, and yet all not actually receive it, in like manner his causing all to be put to death who will not worship the image, does not necessarily signify that their lives are actually to be taken. But how can this be? Answer: It evidently comes under that rule of interpretation in accordance with which verbs of action sometimes signify merely the will and endeavor to do the action in question, not the actual performance of the thing specified. George Bush, Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Literature in N. Y. City University, makes this matter plain. In his Notes on Ex. 7:11, he says:— “It is a canon of interpretation of frequent use in the exposition of the sacred writings that verbs of action sometimes signify merely the will and endeavor to do the action in question. Thus Eze. 24:13: ‘I have purified thee, and thou wast not purged;’ i. e., I have endeavored, and used means, to purify thee. John 5:44: ‘How can ye believe which receive honor one of another;’ i. e., endeavor to receive. Rom 2:4: ‘The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance;’ i. e., endeavors, or tends, to lead thee. Amos 9:3: ‘Though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea;’ i. e., though they aim to be hid. 1 Cor. 10:33: ‘I please all men;’ i. e., endeavor to please. Gal. 5:4: ‘Whosoever of you are justified by the law;’ i. e., seek and endeavor to be justified. Ps. 69:4: ‘They that destroy me are mighty;’ i. e., that endeavor to destroy me. Eng. ‘That would destroy me.’ Acts 7:26: ‘And set them at one again’; i. e., wished and endeavored. Eng. ‘Would have set them.’” So in the passage before us: He causes all to receive a mark, and all who will not worship the image, to be killed; that is, he wills, purposes, and endeavors, to do this; he makes such an enactment, passes such a law, but is not able to execute it; for God interposes in behalf of his people; and then those who have kept the word of Christ’s patience, are kept from the hour of temptation, kept from falling, according to Rev. 3:10: then those who have made God their refuge, are kept from all evil, and no plague comes nigh their dwelling, according to Ps. 91:9, 10; then all who are found written in the book, are delivered, according to Dan. 12:1; and being victors over the beast and his image, they are redeemed from among men, and raise a song of everlasting triumph before the throne of God. Rev. 14:4; 15:2. Another objector may say, You are altogether too credulous in supposing that all the skeptics of our land, the spiritualists, the German infidels, and the irreligious masses generally, can be so far brought to favor the religious observance of Sunday, that a general law can be promulgated in its behalf. We answer, The prophecy must be fulfilled; and if the prophecy requires such a revolution, it will be accomplished. But we do not know that it is necessary. Permit us to suggest an idea, which, though it is only conjecture, may show how enough can be accomplished to fulfill the prophecy, without involving the classes mentioned. This movement, as has been shown, must originate with the churches of our land, and be carried forward by them. They wish to enforce certain practices among all the people; and it would be very natural that, in reference to those points respecting which they wish to influence the outside masses, they should see the necessity of first having absolute conformity among all the evangelical denominations. They could not expect to influence non-religionists to any great degree on questions respecting which they were divided among themselves. So, then, let union be had on those views and practices which the great majority already entertain. To this end co-ercion may first be attempted. But here are a few who cannot possibly attach to the observance of the first day, which the majority wish to secure, any religious obligation; and would it be anything strange for the sentence to be given, Let these few factionists be made to conform, by persuasion if possible, by force, if necessary. Thus the blow may fall on conscientious commandment-keepers, before the outside masses are involved in the issue at all. Thus much by way of conjecture, to which every one is left to attach as much or as little weight as may seem to him proper. To receive the mark of the beast in the forehead, is, we understand, to give the assent of the mind and judgment to his authority in the adoption of that institution, which constitutes the mark. By parity of reasoning, to receive it in the hand, would be to signify allegiance by some outward act. The number over which the saints are also to get the victory, is the number of the papal beast, called also the number of his name, and said to be the number of a man, and said to be six hundred three score and six. The pope wears upon his pontifical crown in jewelled letters, this title; “Vicarius Filii Dei,” “Viceregent of the Son of God;” the numerical value of which title is just six hundred and sixty-six. The most plausible supposition we have ever seen on this point is that here we find the number in question. It is the number of the beast, the papacy; it is the number of his name; for he adopts it as his distinctive title; it is the number of a man; for he who bears it is the “Man of Sin.” We get the victory over it, by refusing those institutions and practices which he sets forth as evidence of his power to sit supreme in the temple of God, and by adopting which we should acknowledge the validity of his title, by conceding his right to act for the church in behalf of the Son of God. And now, reader, we leave with you this subject. We confidently submit the argument as one which is invulnerable in all its points. We ask you to review it carefully. Take in, if thou canst comprehend it, the wonderful phenomenon of our own nation. Consider its location, the time of its rise, the manner of its rise, its character, Satan’s masterpiece of lying wonders which he has here sprung upon the world, and the elements which are everywhere working to fulfill in just as accurate a manner every other specification of the prophecy. Can you doubt the application? We know not how. Then the last agents to appear in this world’s history are on the stage of action, the close of this dispensation is at hand, and the Lord cometh speedily to judge the world. Then an issue of appalling magnitude is before us. It is no less than this: To yield to unrighteous human enactments soon to be made, and thus expose ourselves to the unmingled wrath of an insulted Creator, or to remain loyal to our God and brave the utmost wrath of the dragon and his infuriated hosts. In reference to this issue the third angel now utters his solemn and vehement warning. To aid in sounding over the land this timely note of alarm, to impress upon hearts the importance of a right position in the coming issue, and the necessity of pursuing such a course as will secure the favor of God in the season of earth’s direst extremity, and a share at last in his glorious salvation, is the object of this effort. And if with any it shall have this effect, the prayer of the writer will not be utterly unanswered, nor his labor be wholly lost.