THE RELIGIOUS AMENDMENT by John H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 24, 1874

THE RELIGIOUS AMENDMENT.

By John H. Waggoner

We are sometimes perplexed to account for the singular operations of the human mind. When we see men of good natural ability, and of superior privileges of mental and moral culture, persistently clinging to the weaker side in argument, and seeming able to discover light only on the darkest side of a proposition, or endeavoring to sustain themselves by taking contradictory positions, our charity is taxed to the utmost to give them credit for the ability they seem to possess, and for the integrity of purpose they claim. Seldom have our reflections been more forcibly turned in this direction than in viewing the course pursued by the advocates of the Religious Amendment. A late number of the Christian Statesman, speaking of the Seventh-day Adventists, says:— “From the beginning of the National Reform movement, they have regarded it as the first step toward the persecution which they as keepers of the seventh day will endure when our Sabbath laws are revived and enforced. One cannot but smile at their apprehensions of the success of a movement which would not harm a hair of their heads, but their fears are sincere enough for all that.”

We propose briefly to examine this subject to ascertain, I. If we are justified in expecting that persecution will arise on this point; II. If there is anything in the profession of the Amendment party which, carefully considered, will serve to quiet our fears in this respect; and III. What their purposes really are according to their own avowals.

I. As our denominational name indicates, we are students of the prophecies. From these, and not from any indications which at first appeared, our views were formed and our expectations were raised in regard to the coming persecution. A few points brought to view in prophecy will show the reasons of our belief.

1. The line of events set forth in chapters two, seven, and eight, of the book of Daniel, and continued in chapters twelve, thirteen, and fourteen, of the book of Revelation, concerning the kingdoms and powers of the earth, clearly identify the papal hierarchy as being represented by “the beast” power of Rev. 13:1–10. This will hardly be disputed by any Protestants.

2. The “deadly wound” received by this papal power was inflicted by France in 1798, when the pope was taken a prisoner, and carried away, where he remained and died in exile. The deadly wound was healed when another pope was elected and permitted to occupy his place in the Vatican, though civil power to the extent which the popes before possessed it was never restored.

3. Another beast is seen by the prophet, coming up out of the earth, at the time when the first beast went into captivity, which was lamb-like in appearance. This symbol we apply to the United States; and of necessity, too. For, the first beast represents all the beasts or dominions of Dan. 7; the ten horns of the fourth beast, Rome, the body of the leopard, the third beast, Greece, the feet of the bear, the second beast, Persia, and the mouth of the lion, the first beast, Babylon. “Another beast,” coming up at that time in another locality, must be outside of the old dominions of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. We can find it only on this side of the Atlantic.

4. The characteristics of this beast are such as to fitly represent the United States government. Besides its lamb-like appearance, as already noticed, it is a power doing great wonders. These wonders are wrought in the sight of the beast, showing that it is not a part, or particular phase, of the first beast, as some have taught, nor does it supersede the first beast, or take its place. It says to them that dwell on the earth (“the earth” being the representation of its locality in prophecy, as “the sea” is that of the first beast), that they should make an image to the first beast whose deadly wound was healed. This shows that the action is that of the people, and it is therefore a representative or republican government; also that this action cannot be located centuries in the past, where some have endeavored to locate it, as the deadly wound was not then given and healed.

5. From these and other considerations which we have not now time to notice, we have concluded that an image to the first beast will be made in the United States, and that this image will consist in the union of church and State in this country. And we read that this image will have power to pass strong decrees against those who refuse to worship the first beast, and to enforce these decrees by severe penalties.

6. In Rev. 14:9–12, the Lord gives a message of warning against the worship of the beast and his image, and indicates, by contrast, those who do not worship these powers, as keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

7. In Rev. 12:17, the church is represented by a woman, and war is made against “the remnant of her seed,” which we think must be the last part of the church, because they keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. This is, and has been, proof positive to our minds that the worship and mark of the beast which will be enforced by the image, is something in opposition to the commandments of God. And while we could see no chance for persecution to arise against those who keep the commandments of God except in regard to the fourth commandment, and to the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, we could plainly see from the strong hold which the Sunday has obtained upon the popular mind, and from the spirit of the times, that the agitation of the Sabbath question, and the increase of Sabbath-keepers, will bring persecution upon those who keep the fourth

commandment of the decalogue as it was given by Jehovah.

We can readily understand how it is that the truths presented in these prophecies and the events now transpiring, do not appear as “signs of the times” to such as have never examined the chart nor studied the waymarks, but we invite them to examine with care and candor the facts which we set before them, and then judge whether our faith is not well founded, and whether our opponents do well to laugh at our apprehensions.

It may be worth mentioning, incidentally, that our publications, for twenty years or more, have abounded with statements setting forth our belief and evidences therefor, that the churches and the civil power in this land will yet be closely allied, and that persecution will arise against those who keep the seventh day. And if we present evidence that these things are coming to pass, we cannot be accused of framing our views to fit existing events, but it will be plain to see that events are now transpiring which prove that our positions on the fulfillment of prophecy have been well and carefully taken, and that we have the most abundant reason to believe that our expectations of the future, based on the same prophecies, will be realized.

II. If a profession of good motives and of a desire to avoid persecution and to steer clear of a union of church and State,—if such a profession on the part of the Amendment party could give us assurance and quiet our apprehensions—then might we rest in peace and cease to notice the subject. On this point, they are very explicit. A few quotations will suffice to present their claims. Said Hon. Mr. Patterson in the Pittsburgh Convention:— “Be not misled by the assertion that the movement agitated by this Convention tends to religious intolerance, to wedding church and State. No such tendency exists. On the contrary, this movement 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, such as is now generally and authoritatively conceded to be the law of our land.”

This, surely, is lamb-like enough to throw us all off our guard. The following remarks of President Brunot (pronounced Brunot) on taking the chair are equally innocent to view:— “The fourth Article of the Constitution declares that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,’ and 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, and, with it, an effective guard against a union of church and State.”

And again:—“The attempt to destroy the inalienable right of freedom of conscience in religion in this our favored land would meet with its very first organized resistance from this association.”

And Dr. Kerr said:— “We want no union of church and State. Let that question be raised in this country and there is no element of the opposition that would rise against it that would be more decided and determined than that represented in this Convention. We wish no restraint of the rightful liberties of any man.”

These utterances are pleasant to read, and doubtless they and others like them have had much to do in enlisting so strong an interest in favor of the Amendment. And were these sayings, or those of like nature, all that they had put forth, we should feel constrained to regard the men and their work in a light somewhat different from that in which we now view them.

III. We come now to examine another

class of expressions of a positive nature. What we have quoted is negative, a disclaimer, a relation of what they do not wish to do. Very explicitly have they stated their desires and intentions. True, we cannot reconcile what they have said under these two heads, and it is this which so perplexes us in regard to their professions. It is to be hoped that they will sometime attempt to show that their statements may be harmonized, or else confine their avowals to one side of the question that all may understand, without study or doubt, just the position they occupy.

Dr. Stevenson, Corresponding Secretary of the National Association, and editor of the Statesman, in the opening address at the Convention, said:— “Through the immense largesses it receives from corrupt politicians, the Roman Catholic church is, practically, the established church of the city of New York. These favors are granted under the guise of a seeming friendliness to religion. We propose to put the substance for the shadow, to drive out the counterfeit by the complete substitution of the true.”

These words are somewhat ambiguous, but none the less important on this subject; for, taken in any possible way they are full of meaning. It may be a question whether this “seeming friendliness to religion” is the shadow, and real friendliness to religion in politics is the substance, or whether the Catholic church is the counterfeit and Protestantism the true; but in either case the establishment of the church, or a church, or churches, more completely than at present though practically existing now, is the object aimed at in this paragraph. The latter form, the establishment of the churches, appears to be the object, for, in the next sentence he says:— “What we propose is nothing of a sectarian character. It will give no branch of American Christians any advantage over any other.”

A remark made by Prof. Blanchard is a complement to the above. He has given us a definition of “union of church and State” as opposed by them. Thus he said:— “But union of church and State is the selection by the nation of one church, the endowment of such a church, the appointment of its officers and oversight of its doctrines. For such a union none of us plead. To such a union we are all of us opposed.”

In reading this, we are reminded of the turn taken by the spiritualists when they deny that they are opposed to marriage; they explain by defining marriage to be a union of two persons not to be regulated nor guarded by civil law, and which exists only as long as the parties are agreed thereto, requiring no law to effect a divorce! To such a marriage the most lawless libertine would not object. We are sorry that the respectable advocates of the amendment take a position so nearly parallel to the above-cited position of spiritualists. They give a definition of union of church and State such as no one expects nor fears; such, in fact, as is not possible in the existing state of the churches, and then loudly proclaim that they are opposed to union of church and State! But to a union of church and State in the popular sense of the phrase; a union, not of one church, but, of all the churches recognized as orthodox or evangelical; a union, not giving the State power to elect church officers nor to take the oversight of church doctrines, but, giving the churches the privilege of enforcing by civil law the laws, institutions, and usages of religion according to the faith of the churches, or to the construction put upon those institutions and usages by the churches—to such a union, we say, they are not opposed. They are, essentially and practically, despite their professions, open advocates of union of church and State.

President Brunot and others have referred to the first amendment to the Constitution as a safeguard against establishing

a national religion. Yet in the face of this reference he says:— “We propose such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States (or its preamble) as will suitably acknowledge Almighty God as the author of the nation’s existence and the ultimate source of its authority, Jesus Christ as its Ruler, and the Bible as the supreme rule of its conduct; and thus indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages, on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.”

Now the question arises, If all this were accomplished, would the Christian religion be established in and by this government? If it be answered that it would not, then another question: Would individuals be at liberty under the law of the land to disregard those Christian institutions and usages? If not, if both of these questions be answered in the negative, then what would be the existing state of things? Could it be defined?

This will never do; such talk is idle. To place Christian usages on a legal basis is to enforce them by law, and to enforce them is to “establish” them. When they are placed on “an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land,” they are fully established, and to deny this is only to trifle with language. But again, you cannot distinguish between “all Christian laws, institutions, and usages,” and the Christian religion. By establishing them you establish it, of necessity. To deny this is to manifest a lack of discrimination or of candor. We speak with due respect, but we have to deal with facts of the greatest magnitude and importance, and which affect us in those things which we hold most sacred and dear. The advocates of this movement are able men. We hope they will not ignore these points, but so explain them as to reconcile themselves with themselves if it can be done.

Their desires and intentions are made known and their future action foreshadowed in the speech of Prof. C. A. Blanchard, “which was frequently greeted with enthusiastic applause,” as the report says. We have already quoted from him to show what kind of a union of church and State they do not indorse. The heading of his speech is, “The Conflict of Law.” This conflict, which he says exists in the United States, he deplores and argues against. It amounts to this: the first Amendment to the Constitution declares that Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion; that this being in our fundamental law is expected to indicate the form and action of our government; but, in the face of this, chaplains are elected or appointed in Congress and in the army; Sunday is recognized, if not legally enforced, in many ways; certain so-called religious practices are discountenanced, as polygamy among the Mormons, &c. The reader will readily understand the quotations given below:— “The Constitution declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and also that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. These statements are very general. No law may be made prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But who is to decide what is religion? The citizens, of course, for Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Every man may choose his religion or make a new one, and Congress may not prohibit its free exercise. Tartar, Confucian, and Hindoo, may bring their gods many and lords many. The Moslem minaret may shine in the setting sun from every hill. Every graveyard may become a temple for celestial worshipers of the dead. Every one of India’s three hundred million gods may leave that land where the snows of Himalaya stand silent sentinel, and Cape Comorin looks out upon the summer sea. Every one of them may come to this Christian land, and here find a congenial home. “‘We cannot say, as a nation, that they do not have good religions, for we must pass no act respecting the establishment of religion. We cannot forbid their practices, for we must not prohibit its free exercise. “‘It answers no purpose to say that wife burning, man sacrificing, and babe killing are not religious practices. These things are done by millions of people in the name of religion. When we say they are not religious acts, we make a law respecting the establishment of religion. When we prohibit them, we prohibit its free exercise.

“‘The American people must say that the Bible is the word of God, and that Christianity is the religion of this country, or the exclusion of such religious practices as have been named is prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and hence unconstitutional. This is the Constitution which the infidel likes, and to which he wants our laws adapted. “‘But,’ says the Christian objector, ‘the laws of the States do not permit wife-burning and man-eating religions. Bigamy is punished by law in every State of the Union, and the mother found tossing her babe to a hungry shark would be locked up in the prison or the mad-house. Sabbath laws, chaplains, and chapels, in every department of public service, attest the national regard for religion.’ True again. But what right has government to tax me to sustain a chapel or chaplain, when it has nothing to do with religion and I don’t believe in any God? What right to interfere with the Sabbath when my religion demands it? What right to imprison for bigamy if my religion teaches it and I am free to practice any religion I choose? The answer is plain. Just no right at all. No law which forbids the free exercise of religion which calls for human sacrifice, adultery, or blasphemy, can stand a suit in the Supreme Court of the United States. “‘Nay, more. Suppose, (and you but suppose a fact) that a body of voters say that their church has authority over the State in civil concerns. Suppose, further, that these voters honestly believe that their salvation depends on implicit obedience to their priests in temporal as well as spiritual matters. Suppose, once more, that the priests teach the people to set up another sovereignty on this soil, to collect arms and train soldiers in pursuance of this religious conviction, and, finally, suppose that they (in obedience to religious instruction) make war on the United States. What then? Why, then our officials and people are bound to stand still and have their throats cut. For we cannot say that this is not a religious service, and if it is, have no right to prohibit it. You say: ‘This is absurd.’ Of course it is. That is precisely what we wish to show the American people. To say to the world that we will have no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and then putting men in prison or hanging them for exercising theirs, is to advertise ourselves to the world as liars or fools, or both. This conflict of law is inevitable and irrepressible. Our laws will be heathenized or our Constitution Christianized, and Americans must soon decide which they will have done. “‘To settle this conflict by Christianizing the Constitution is only an act of justice to the men who come here to live under our laws. “‘Constitutional laws punish for false money, weights, and measures, and of course Congress establishes a standard for money, weight, and measure. So Congress must establish a standard of religion, or admit anything called religion.’”

More to the same intent might be quoted; but surely this is enough to show the drift of the argument. If this is not a direct plea for the abolition of the first amendment to the Constitution, then such a plea could not be expressed by the English language. It may be claimed, indeed, that his positions are reasonable and just. We do not now stop to argue the difference between morality and usages which are purely religious, but for brevity’s sake confine ourselves to the one point before us. However reasonable and just his argument is claimed to be, it is certainly inconsistent with those other declarations made in the same Convention that that body would be the first to oppose the establishment of religion or the abolition of the first amendment to the Constitution. We cannot admire the judgment of those who so earnestly argue or loudly applaud both sides of so plain a proposition, nor could we trust to their leadership in a movement so vitally affecting our dearest rights.

We admit that their arguments are plausible, though often fallacious, and are well calculated to captivate. And herein lies the danger. If they cannot see that their declarations are inconsistent and contradictory we pity their blindness. As at first remarked, their professions give us no assurance that their misguided zeal will not result in religious persecution.

Their disclaimers embrace two points. One, that they do not seek nor desire the abolition of the first Amendment to the

Constitution. To what this amounts, we have now seen. The other, that they do not seek the abolition or change of that Article of the Constitution which forbids any religious test being required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. On this point, we make a quotation from the Statesman, where it speaks of certain Congressmen who traveled on Sunday. It said:— “Not one of those men who thus violated the Sabbath is fit to hold any official position in a Christian nation. . . . 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 the movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical ends.”

Studying the prophecies to which we have referred, we came to the conclusion that the privileges of citizenship would soon be denied, in the United States, to those who would not observe the Sunday, and this view we have published to the world for more than a score of years. And already the Statesman openly declares that, when the amendment they seek is procured, no one who does not keep Sunday shall be eligible to any office in the United States. And yet it affects to smile at our fears that our rights will be infringed upon by the passage of the Amendment! If they already avow that we shall be ineligible to office for not keeping Sunday, can we hope that they will not utterly disfranchise us when their general Sunday law is in full force, if our consciences will not permit us to observe it? All this is plainly revealed in the prophecy when “the image of the beast” is made, that is, when church and State become united in this nation. They may laugh, but, as in the fable of the boys and the frogs, it is not a matter for laughter to those on the other side, only as they look beyond this persecution to the deliverance which God has promised in that “time of trouble.”

The Statesman has even claimed that, inasmuch as the Sunday-Sabbath is better than no Sabbath at all, they who observe the seventh day ought to favor the proposed amendment. As far as obedience to the fourth commandment is concerned, Sunday is, to us, no better than no Sabbath at all. But waiving this point, and keeping close to that under consideration, we fail to see, in any of the writings in favor of Sunday legislation, that spirit of toleration toward keepers of the seventh day which is necessary to secure our approval of, and co-operation in, the movement. A prominent writer on this subject, who is also a vice-president of the National Association, said:— “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.”

Of course, when it is arbitrarily decided that the keeping of the seventh day is inconsistent with Christianity, all who keep the seventh day will fall under the same ban that it is intended to put upon the Jews. And this was yet more clearly stated by Pres. Blanchard, one of the foremost advocates of the Amendment, in a speech which was published some months since in the Statesman, in which he enumerated their opposers, and placed those who keep the seventh day with infidels and lawless ones, who stand opposed to Christianity and its institutions. We regret that we have not the speech at hand to give a verbatim quotation, but assure the reader that we have not overstated its position.

Now, in the face of such facts as these, how can the Statesman vindicate its own consistency when it says that the success of their measure would not harm a hair of the heads of those who keep the seventh day? And may we not safely appeal to the reader that our position on the fulfillment of prophecy, a position which we have occupied for more than twenty years, is indicated by the events now transpiring and impending? Our faith is strengthened by every omen of success on the part of the Amendment party. That “the image of the beast” will soon be formed, and “the mark of the beast” enforced, in opposition to the fourth commandment of God, we have no doubt.

If we have spoken in a deprecating manner of the impending crisis, it is only because we think that modest speech becomes the people of God, and we would carefully avoid every appearance of the spirit or bearing of the bravado. But we assure the reader, and the Statesman, and all concerned, that we have no fearful forebodings of the coming storm. When the Saviour foretold the distress, perplexity, and trouble, of the last days, he said to his disciples, “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” The hour of darkness will be succeeded by a morning of bright glory; the time of trouble only ushers in everlasting deliverance to the people of God. The hour of trial will be short for all those who fear God and keep his commandments. But they who set themselves in opposition to the plain word of God and his law have reason to fear and tremble. They may laugh now, but their laughter will be turned into weeping. They may triumph here, but the time of their triumphing will be short. While we love our blessed Lord, and pray for his appearing, and long to see his face, we shall spend no time in lamenting that we see the evidences of his near approach.

To the reader who is not acquainted with the progress of this movement, it may be interesting to state a few facts. It is well understood that it is the intention to throw it into the political field as soon as the way is sufficiently prepared. To this point, they are already turning, and making definite calculations. Dr. McFall, in reporting meetings in a certain place, said:— “This is a hopeful community. The Methodist brethren largely predominate, and a grateful acknowledgment is due to them for the free use of their church in the cause of National Reform at any time. We believe the entire district will vote the National Reform ticket as soon as presented.”

Dr. Kieffer, who resides in Franklin Co., Pa., said that every man with only one exception, in his neighborhood, could be counted on to vote for that ticket. Many expressions show that they are canvassing for the vote wherever they go, and feel secure in counting on a number large enough to control the election when they see fit to raise the question. The Statesman of Feb. 14, 1874, contains a very interesting article on this subject, as follows:— “A PREDICTION HASTENING TO ITS FULFILLMENT. “Fifteen years ago a clear-headed writer in one of our leading quarterlies gave utterance to a notable prediction. Five years before the formation of the National Association for the Religious Amendment of the Constitution, this writer saw the incipient reaction against the exclusion of all acknowledgment of God and Christianity from our Constitutions and most solemn national acts. After appealing to all good men and true patriots to advocate such Constitutional reforms as will guard the most precious rights of a free Christian nation, the writer says:— “‘The time is not far distant, as we are persuaded, when some capable man, putting himself at the head of a movement which is already making itself felt, to vindicate our national religious liberty, our inalienable right to worship God as a nation, will become the most popular candidate for the presidential chair. A Christian and Protestant people, when patience has become exhausted by intolerable political corruption, and indignant at the demoralization of its educational interests, will stand by him. Raising his voice in behalf of a nation’s right to worship God, his words will speak into clear consciences their own struggling thoughts; and they will hasten to crown him with their highest honors.’—(Prof. J. H. McIlvaine, in Princeton Review for Oct. 1859, p. 699.) “‘When these remarkable words were written, “the movement which was already making itself felt” had not taken shape. But now it is well organized and thoroughly before the nation. Its progress for the last two years is something amazing. No other movement in the country could bring together such a Convention as that which met in Pittsburgh on the 4th and 5th of this month. With thousands of workers scattered all over the land, the movement will and must progress with ever-accelerating rapidity. Nor does the movement want a head. “A capable man” stands conspicuously at the front—one who dared to face obloquy when the movement was sneered at; one who had the moral courage to stand up and speak for the truth when the press generally tried to ridicule or ignore it; one whose untarnished Christian character would honor the place of the chief magistrate of the nation as it has never been honored yet, is already attracting thousands upon thousands of American citizens. His words have spoken into clear consciousness the struggling thoughts of multitudes, and the day is not very far distant when they will crown him with their highest honors.’”

This reference is to Mr. Brunot, whom they evidently intend to bring forward as their candidate for President of the United States. In connection with this, the following from the report of the Pittsburgh Convention has peculiar significance:— “Mr. McAllister stated that the National Conventions were very expensive, and it was suggested that the next National Convention should be postponed until July, 1876, the centennial of the Declaration of Independence. In the meantime, five or six local conventions would be held—one in Boston, one in Baltimore, one in Chicago, one on the Pacific slope, and two in the Southern States. In 1876, a grand National Convention should be held in Philadelphia, by which time the petitions for the Religious Amendment would be signed by several millions of citizens, and a united effort would be made at Philadelphia to lay those petitions before the Congress of the United States, and secure the Amendment proposed.”

If they have anything near the success they anticipate, it is not too much to expect that at the Philadelphia Convention they will put their candidate in the field for the election in the fall of 1876. This we believe is their intention. The Pittsburgh Convention as compared with previous ones, and their great success during the past year, seem to warrant them in making large calculations.

The Statesman of Feb. 28, 1874, says: “The one thing most needed for the Christian reformation of the government, is the organization of Christian men for political purposes.”

One other phase of the agitation of this subject claims a brief notice. It is that of political opposition to the Amendment. There are many foreigners, especially the Germans, who claim the privilege under our Constitution of making the Sunday a holiday as is the custom in their native land. It is well known that in all Catholic countries Sunday is regarded and kept as a festival day, not as a Sabbath. Indeed, a writer on this subject claims the Sunday as peculiarly an “American Sabbath,” because of the fact stated, that so little of a Sabbatic character is assigned to it in Europe, especially on the Continent. These foreigners, coming to our country under a Constitution of religious freedom and toleration, will offer a most determined opposition to the Amendment.

And there is another class, of native-born Americans, who will be as determined in opposition as the other. Those composing this class, planting themselves on the fact that our fathers fled from oppression, both political and ecclesiastical, in Europe, and founded here a government of civil and religious liberty which they do not intend shall be perverted to a despotism, either of church or State, openly declare that that which their fathers fought and died to establish they will as readily and persistently fight to maintain. With these parties we have no affinity. Our opposition will never be that of force. But, though we cannot join with such opposition, it is that which appeals to the patriotic feelings of thousands, and may not be turned aside by mere words of scorn as the Statesman affects to do. We think it is safe to predict, on the success of this Amendment and on the attempt to enforce laws giving it effect, the sorest trouble that our nation and country has ever seen, not excepting the late terrible war. That was to a great extent sectional—the South against the North. This will engender strife in every neighborhood, and raise a conflict in every community.

While the Amendment party class us with infidels and lawless opposers of “Christian morals,” we expect to receive as little favor at the hands of those who shall oppose the movement by political action or force of arms. We plant ourselves on the commandment of God, and his blessed assurance that “the angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.” Here is our only hope and trust. J. H. WAGGONER.