Lamb-Like, but Dangerous.
By A. H. Lewis
A “DEBATE on the Religious Amendment” of the Constitution of the United States occurred at Crestline, Ohio, on the 29th of December, 1875. In the course of the discussion, the advocates of the amendment presented the following, as a sample of the thing designed concerning practical points:— “The Jew and many Baptists have conscientious convictions that the seventh day of the week is the true Sabbath; but as many (or more) of other persuasions, believe the first day of the week to be the Sabbath. In this conflict the State has not hesitated to decide. And that decision—the only one that can be made—is based upon what is recognized as the Great Public Conscience. In other words, the conscientious belief common to the majority is given the preference, and embodied in legal enactments; while the minority, instead of being compelled to profess, or believe with the majority, are left to hold their own views and promulgate them, without incurring any civil penalty, provided they are not guilty of any overt act in violation of law.” Read carelessly, the above sounds quite harmless; examined more closely, it has the true ring of the coin which says, “Might makes right.” The darkest periods in the history of Romanism, when its hands were full of blood, were days in which the “Great Public Conscience” was “given the preference,” and became the standard of the civil law. Even then the minority were allowed to hold and promulgate their views, providing they were “not guilty of any overt act in violation of law.” But on practical questions it is not possible for the dissenter to obey conscience without committing an “overt act in violation of the law.” Violations of the Sunday law—weak as it now is—are permitted only by sufferance, and because many believe the law to be unconstitutional and unjust. Increase the power of this “Great Public Conscience,” and make it a tool in the hands of partizans, and this sufferance will speedily disappear. Note the words of the above: “In this conflict the State has not hesitated to decide. And that decision—the only one that can be made—is based,” etc. Exactly, “the only one that can be made.” That is well put. That is plain. It is a true statement, from the standpoint of those who press such amendments. Majorities must govern in matters of religion, and the national government must so decree. That was good doctrine in the tenth century, when the death-pall of a corrupted State-church hung over the world. It was good doctrine even in the later years of the fifteenth century, when “Rome’s worst Pope,” Alexander VI., and his son, Cæsar Borgia, made the black pages of history blush with their crimes. We may deem this “Religious Amendment” scheme an idle tale. It may prove to be an idle tale. It may prove to be nothing more. But earnest men are behind it. They think they do God’s service in pressing it. They are not now cruel in their opposition to the minority, at least the Protestant minority. They are only orthodox; intensely orthodox. So the Romish persecutors who slew thousands of Sabbath-keeping Waldenses during the later years of the dark ages, were only orthodox. They only put the “Great Public Conscience” into civil laws. The road between intense orthodoxy on the part of the “Great Public Conscience” and persecution is short. Truth need not be feared, but it is well not to be hoodwinked or cajoled.—A. H. Lewis, in Sabbath Recorder.