What They Propose to Do.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE effect which the proposed religious amendment to the Constitution of the United States is intended to produce is very clearly shown in the last number of the Christian Statesman. A clergyman who is engaged in the work of the National Reform Association, visited Watrousville, Michigan. At the close of the lecture opportunity was given for questions, when a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of that place, asked how the proposed religious amendment would affect Seventh-day Adventists. The reply was: "Just as existing Sabbath [Sunday] laws affect them in States where the first day of the week alone is recognized as the civil Sabbath."44 Now we do not exactly believe this, and for this reason: Sunday laws are very rarely enforced in those States where they already exist, as in California, for instance; consequently Seventh-day Adventists are not at present materially affected by them. But the friends of National Reform (as it is called) do not contemplate such a state of things when they secure the amendment for which they are working. They are not children, and will not be satisfied with the pretense of a law. What they contemplate is such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will give them authority to close all places of business on Sunday, stop the running of railroad trains, the carrying of mails, printing and delivery of newspapers, etc., on that day. In short, they desire to make of the Sunday a sabbath in the full sense of the word—a day of rest for all. This is what they claim to be working for. But no such state of things exists now, consequently those who believe in resting on the Sabbath and laboring on Sunday, would be differently affected by the passage of the amendment. It is worth while to remember, however, that existing State Sunday laws would affect Seventh-day Adventists, and other observers of the Sabbath, very seriously, if the friends of these laws were able to enforce them as they wish to. Those who are familiar with the persecutions in Pennsylvania, under the Sunday Law of 1794, and with what was attempted last year in California, will have no difficulty in understanding just how "existing Sabbath laws affect them in States where the first day of the week alone is recognized as the civil Sabbath." But the animus of the movement is shown by the next question and answer. We quote:— "Another said that it [the religious amendment] would lead to interference with liberty to worship according to the dictates of conscience. To this it was answered: 'No. But unless a small minority were to enjoy exceptional privileges; it would interfere with work on the Lord's day.'" Just so. And since they do not propose to grant "exceptional privileges," the "small minority" who keep the seventh day, must refrain from laboring on Sunday. Still religious liberty will not be interfered with! They virtually say, "We have no particular objection to your observance of the seventh day; indeed, if you so desire, and can make a living, you may rest on Monday and Tuesday and Thursday and Friday as well, but you must rest on Sunday." Everybody is at liberty to do just as he pleases, provided he does not wish to do anything contrary to the practice of the majority. This is religious liberty with a vengeance. The pope of Rome would grant that much. Let us take a similar case as an illustration. Suppose that Christianity were entirely unknown in China, as it was only a few years ago. A little colony of Englishmen and Americans, attracted by the climate and by the superior facilities offered for their business, locate there. China has been represented to them as a land of religious liberty, where every man is free to worship as his conscience may dictate. After they have been there a few weeks they are brought before the officers of justice and accused of violating the laws of the empire. They ask wherein they have erred, and are told that they have neglected the worship of Joss; that they have never been seen in any temple; and that they have been known to speak irreverently of the gods of wood. The strangers reply that they worship the God that made the heavens and the earth—the one whose name is Jehovah. But they are told that that God is not recognized in China. "The majority of our people," say the officers, "worship these gods which you see. We have therefore made a law that all people in this country must worship them also. You can readily see that no exception can be made in your case, since you are so small a minority that you cannot help yourselves. But our laws do not interfere with the religious liberty of anybody. You are not prohibited from worshiping your God, but you must worship ours, or else your heads will be the forfeit." Just this state of things has existed in many countries, and does exist even yet; but those countries have been called despotisms, and places where there was no freedom of conscience. And this is no exaggerated picture of what will happen in this country when the National Reform Association accomplishes its object. All unprejudiced lovers of true liberty will agree that such a movement is not only opposed to the principles of our government, but to the spirit of true Christianity. This idea that the majority must rule is a most pernicious one, if carried out to its fullest extent. It is opposed to the spirit of the gospel. The Bible gives no warrant for it. It is true that Peter exhorts the younger to be subject to the elder, but he also says, "Yea, all of you be subject one to another." This is far different from the majority ruling the minority. The idea that might makes right, is only another way of saying that the majority must rule, has not the least foundation in the Bible. According to our friends of the National Reform Association, Elijah was simply a headstrong fanatic, and Paul was indeed a "pestilent fellow." Both advocated ideas that were held by but a small minority, and were opposed to the established religion. According to the theory that the majority ought to rule, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego richly deserved the punishment that was threatened them for standing out against the law of the land, and should have been left to their fate. Their answer, "We are not careful to answer thee in this matter," and "Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up," was simply a manifestation of impudent stubbornness. But we have not been accustomed to regard it so. When Peter and John "preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead," they were acting contrary to the will of the majority. The State religion was utterly opposed to the doctrine which they taught, yet they persisted in their course even after being threatened and warned not to do so. Their reply to the rulers was this: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." This noble reply has been admired by Christians of every generation, and even those who to-day plead for a State religion and the rule of the majority, will contend that the apostles were justified in their action. And we, although far inferior to them, may yet follow their example. We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard, and practice that which God has commanded; and though "the rulers take counsel together against the Lord," and against his holy law, we pray that we may have strength to humbly answer, "We ought to obey God rather than men."