The Religious Amendment.
By John Harvey Waggoner
FIFTH ANNUAL CONVENTION AT PITTSBURGH, PA. The brethren at Battle Creek decided that it was best to have some one of our faith attend this meeting, and I was requested to do so. This request came too late for me to reach Pittsburgh at the commencement, which was Wednesday afternoon, Feb. 4. But I reached the city that night, or rather before daylight, Thursday morning. The meeting was held only two days, which was a disappointment to me, and I think they who requested me to attend it had the idea that it would continue to the end of the week. The first session was principally occupied in organizing, while the set speeches were mostly in the evenings. This was a meeting of delegates, but largely attended. The number of delegates holding certificates was 641; non-certified, 432; total, 1073, representing 18 States. Petitions to Congress, partially returned as I understood, footed up over 54,000 names. It has been strongly impressed upon my mind that we have under-estimated, rather than over-estimated, the rapid growth and power of this movement. Those who think we have been deluded in confidently looking for a great change in the nature and policy of our government, could but be convinced that we are right in this if they would attend such a meeting as this, or by other means become acquainted with what is actually taking place in this respect. The reason assigned for calling a delegated convention is that no place could be found large enough to accommodate a mass meeting of the friends of the cause. But it is proposed to hold mass meetings in the several States, and have a general grand rally in 1876, the centennial anniversary of Independence. The animus of this meeting cannot be understood nor appreciated by any one who did not attend it. It was a large gathering of delegates and others, and for enthusiasm and unanimity is rarely equaled. This feature can be but feebly described in any published report. And I notice that some of the most significant and stirring expressions are left out of the most complete reports of the speeches yet given. The officers of the Association for the coming year are, President, Hon. Felix R. Brunot, Pittsburgh, with 99 Vice-Presidents, among whom are 4 Governors, 5 State Superintendents of Public Instruction, 9 Bishops, 15 Judges of higher Courts, and 41 College Presidents and Professors; and the others are all eminent men. General Secretary, Rev. D. McAllister, N. Y.; Corresponding Secretary, Rev. T. P. Stevenson, Philadelphia. At the close of the Thursday morning meeting, I went directly to Mr. Brunot, who was Chairman of the Convention as well as President of the Association, and inquired if privilege would be granted to Christians to briefly present objections to the objects of the meeting. He replied there would not. I referred as a precedent to the opportunity given at Cincinnati to Mr. Abbot, who represented the “Free Thinkers,” to offer a protest, and stated my hope that Christian opposers might have the same privilege. He said the favor was granted to Mr. Abbot at that time, but this was a meeting of delegates, not a mass meeting, and it was called for the friends to give expression to their sentiments, and was so large that they had to refuse to hear any, even friends, who were not delegates. His answer was what was to be expected, but I considered it duty to make an effort to obtain a brief hearing. Being very anxious to call the attention of the Convention to our position and to the injustice being done to us, I next tried to get a circular printed to be distributed in the Hall before the opening of the evening session, but the time was too short. As a last resort, I hastily prepared an article and procured its publication in the Daily Post to be issued early on Friday morning, hoping thus to get it before a large number of the delegates before they left the city. I will as concisely as possible give some observations on the meeting. 1. The speaking force of this Convention was composed largely of the various orders of Presbyterians. The President is an Episcopalian. 2. They are evidently popular men among their people, and well calculated to wield influence. 3. They show determination to make the movement popular, and to reach the feelings of the people by every means. In their speeches, they alternate with the most impassioned earnestness and gravest argument the sharpest wit and even laughable puns and incidents. Staid “Reverends” clap their hands in applause as heartily as I ever saw done in any kind of gathering, and Old School Presbyterian Doctors of Divinity, who have generally been noted for clerical dignity, take the greatest delight in raising the cheers of the crowd by their keen thrusts and witticisms. The Commercial was publicly recommended as giving the official report, and of the speech of the President of Washington and Jefferson College, it said: “Dr. Hay’s address was received with frequent marks of approbation, and his witty points drew forth shouts of laughter.” Judging from what I have seen, the standard of piety is not to be elevated by this work. 4. They take special pains to repudiate the idea of uniting church and State, incorporating the denial in their Declaration of Principles, and frequently noticing it in their speeches. Hon. Mr. Patterson said: “Be not misled by the assertion that the movement agitated by this Convention tends to religious intolerance, to wedding church and State. On the contrary, it claims nothing but to secure in the preamble of our national Constitution an acknowledgment of the supremacy of God and the Christian character of our nation.” The President said: “The first amendment in the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof! We have not proposed to change these. We deem them essential, in connection with the amendment we ask, to the preservation of religious liberty, an effective guard against a ‘union of church and State.’” These sentiments were often reiterated. Yet again the President said: “We propose . . . to place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages, on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” How these two positions are to be harmonized, they have not said; for certainly “Christian institutions and usages” cannot be placed on a legal basis in the law of the land except by compelling their observance, which they intend to do; but how our government can compel to an observance of all Christian institutions and usages without making laws to establish the Christian religion is not easily seen. It is evident that these men are trying to deceive others, or else themselves laboring under strong self-deception. 5. Most of the speakers united in giving the most doleful view of the state of the nation, of both government and people, and of the tendencies of the age. They say the necessity of the present movement is pressed upon them; they are “warned by the most alarming symptoms;” that nothing but this amendment could save the nation; that “Tweedism is a predominant phase of the business, corporation, and political life, of the nation;” “corruption is rampant; a mortal disease is already upon our nation’s vitals,” &c. All such statements are in strange contrast with the preaching from the pulpits of the land, which represents the world as progressing and growing better, fast approaching to the millennium, and the churches so holding the reins of moral power as to insure the speedy universal triumph of the gospel. Here also it seems as if they were insincere or self-deceived. 6. They do not speak in tones of doubt as to the accomplishment of their purpose; they report nothing but abundant success and the highest enthusiasm wherever their cause is presented. Their whole bearing in the Convention was that of men already flushed with victory. 7. A ready hearing by the people is assured to them in all parts of the country, because they are backed up by so many of the most influential men both in the State and church. Four bishops of the M. E. church, five of the Episcopal, fifteen judges of high courts, one U. S. Senator, editors of important church organs, and not least, so many presidents and professors of colleges, who are molding the religious sentiments of tens of thousands of students who will soon be the workers in the various churches. A few points of great interest to us as a people press upon my mind. The Seventh-day Adventists are, more than any others, deeply interested in this movement. They only, guided by the light of the “sure word of prophecy,” have warned the people for more than a score of years of the coming of these things. They only, on conscientious grounds, stand directly opposed to the movement. It is true that on the question of the enforcement of the first day of the week, it will be brought to bear against the S. D. Baptists as well as ourselves, but as long as they reject our views of the fulfillment of prophecy in this work, so long must the conflict be waged principally with the S. D. Adventists; at least, the work of warning against the worship of the beast and his image must be conducted by believers in the fulfillment of these prophecies. And it must be evident that this warning, which must and will be given, will chiefly arouse the indignation of religious bigots, who hope to do by law that which they cannot do by argument. Religious wars have always been the most77desperate and sanguinary; religious intolerance is the most implacable. Men will bear opposition in business and politics with more complacency than in religion. All the past goes to assure us that the deepest and most unpitying warfare will be waged against those who oppose the Amendment on Bible grounds and from conscientious motives. One sentiment was expressed which I forgot to notice. Dr. Kieffer said that this movement was more political than ecclesiastical, appealing to the patriotism of all classes alike, and should be accepted by all. Dr. Hodge said it was in no sense sectarian, and the ends it sought could be accepted by one denomination as well as by another—by the Catholic as well as by the Protestant. He said it was destined to unite all classes. And their work was all in this direction. I remember reading, many years ago, the following words:— “When in friendship foemen blend,
God to the weaker pity send.”
A union for victory without union on principle and for the truth will always result in evil, as did that of Pilate and Herod. The crisis is coming! “Who is on the Lord’s side?” The line will soon be drawn. The rallying cry is sounding. “A little while” covers the period of our work, our trials, and our waiting. Victory is near. Patience a little longer. The Saviour, when describing the last-day troubles, said when these come to pass, then look up, for redemption draws nigh. Let us take “Courage in the Lord!” as our watchword, and press forward. J. H. WAGGONER. Pittsburgh, Pa., Feb. 8, 1874.