The United States in the Light of Prophecy.
In the last preceding article of this series, the startling fact was noticed that for several years a movement has been on foot, daily growing in extent, and importance, and power, to fulfill that portion of the prophecy of Rev. 13:11–17, which first calls forth the dissent of the objector, and which appears from every point of view the most improbable of all the specifications; namely, the erection of the image and the enforcing of the mark. Beyond this nothing remains but the sharp conflict of the people of God with this earthly power, and the eternal triumph of the overcomer. An Association, even now national in its character, and endeavoring, as is appropriate for those who have such objects in view, to secure their purposes under the sanction of the highest authority in the land, the National Constitution, already has this matter in hand. In the interest of this Association there is published in Philadelphia, a semi-monthly paper called the Christian Statesman, in advocacy of this movement. Every issue of that paper goes forth filled with arguments and appeals from some of the ablest pens in our land, in favor of the desired Constitutional amendment. These are the very methods by which, in a country like ours, great revolutions are brought about; and no movement has ever risen so suddenly as this to so high a position in public esteem with certain classes, and taken so strong a hold upon their hearts. Says Mr. G. A. Townsend (New World and Old, p. 212.):— “Church and State has several times crept into American politics, as in the contentions over the Bible in the public schools, the Anti-Catholic party of 1844, &c. Our people have been wise enough heretofore to respect the clergy in all religious questions, and to entertain a wholesome jealousy of them in politics. The latest politico-theological movement [italics ours] is to insert the name of the Deity in the Constitution.” But it may be asked how the Sunday question is to be affected by the proposed Constitutional amendment. Answer: The object, or, to say the least, one object, of this amendment is to put the Sunday institution on a legal basis, and compel its observance by the arm of the law. At the National Convention held in Philadelphia, Jan. 18 and 19, 1871, the following resolution was among the first offered by the Business Committee:— “Resolved, That, in view of the controlling power of the Constitution in shaping State, as well as national, policy, it is of immediate importance to public morals, and to social order, to secure such an amendment as will indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages in our government, on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the nation, especially those which secure a proper oath, and which protect society against blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, and polygamy.” By Sabbath-breaking, is meant nothing else but Sunday-breaking. In a convention of the friends of Sunday, assembled Nov. 29, 1870, in New Concord, Ohio, the Rev. James White is reported to have said: “The question [of Sunday observance] is closely connected with the National Reform movement; for until the government comes to know God, and honor his law, we need not expect to restrain Sabbath-breaking corporations.” Here again the idea of the legal enforcement of Sunday observance stands uppermost. Once more: The Philadelphia Press, of Dec. 5, 1870, stated that some Congressmen, including Vice President Colfax, arrived in Washington, by Sunday trains, Dec. 4, on which the Christian Statesman commented as follows (we give italics as we find them):— 1. “Not one of those men who thus violated the Sabbath is fit to hold any official position in a Christian nation. *” “He who violates the Sabbath may not steal, because the judgment of society so strongly condemns theft, or because he believes that honesty is the best policy; but tempt him with the prospect of concealment, or the prospect of advantage, and there can be no reason why he who robs God will not rob his neighbor also. For this reason, the Sabbath law lies at the foundation of morality. Its observance is an acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of God over us.” “2. The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin, because the nation hath not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule for our public servants, ‘We charge you to serve us in accordance with the higher law of God.’ These Sabbath-breaking railroads, moreover, are corporations created by the State, and amenable to it. The State is responsible to God for the conduct of these creatures which it calls into being. It is bound therefore to restrain them from this, as from other crimes, and any violation of the Sabbath, by any corporation, should work immediate forfeiture of its charter. And the Constitution of the United States, with which all State legislation is required to be in harmony, should be of such a character as to prevent any State from tolerating such infractions of fundamental moral law.” “3. 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 that the movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical ends.” From all this we see the important place the Sabbath question is to hold in this movement—the important place it even now holds in the minds of those who are urging it forward. Let the amendment called for be granted, “and all the results indicated in this note,” says the writer, “will ultimately be secured;” that is, individuals and corporations will be restrained from violating the Sunday observance. The acknowledgment of God in the Constitution may do very well as a banner under which to sail; but the practical bearing of the movement relates to the compulsory observance of the first day of the week. Even now the question is agitated why the Jew should be allowed to follow his business on the first day after having observed the seventh. The same question is equally pertinent to all seventh-day keepers. A writer signing himself “American” in the Boston Herald of Dec. 14, 1871, said:— “The President in his late message in speaking of the Mormon question, says, ‘They shall not be permitted to break the laws under the cloak of religion.’ This undoubtedly meets the approval of every American citizen, and I wish to cite a parallel case, and ask: Why should the Jews of this country be allowed to break the laws and keep open their stores on the Sabbath under the cloak of their religion? while I or any other true American will be arrested and suffer punishment if we do the same thing? If there is a provision made allowing a few to conduct business on the Sabbath, what justice or equality can there be in any such provision and why should it not be stopped at once?” And this question, we apprehend, will be very summarily decided, when once the Constitutional amendment has been secured. At a Ministerial Association of the M. E. church held in Healdsburg, Cal., April 26–28, 1870, Rev. Mr. Trefren of Napa, speaking of S. D. A. ministers, said, “I predict for them a short race. What we want is law in the matter.” Then, referring to the present movement for a law, he added, “And we will have it too; and when we get the power into our hands, we will show these men what their end will be.” From a work recently published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, entitled “The Sabbath,” by Chas. Elliott, Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of the North West, Chicago, Ill., we take this paragraph:— “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.” There is no mistaking the import of this language: No matter if the Jew does not secure equal rights with others. We are not a Jewish nation, but a Christian; and all must be made to conform to what the majority decide to be Christian institutions. This affects all who observe the seventh day, as much as the Jews. And we apprehend it will not be a difficult matter to lead the masses, whose prejudices incline them in this direction, to believe that it is “absolutely necessary” that all legislation must take such a form, and cause them to act accordingly. Several years since, Dr. Durbin, of the Christian Advocate and Journal, gave his views on this subject as follows:— “I infer, therefore, that the civil magistrate may not be called upon to enforce the observance of the Sabbath [Sunday] as required in the spiritual kingdom of Christ; but when Christianity becomes the moral and spiritual life of the State, the State is bound through her magistrates to prevent the open violation of the holy Sabbath, as a measure of self-preservation. She cannot, without injuring her own vitality, and incurring the divine displeasure, be recreant to her duty in this matter.” At a meeting held at Saratoga Springs, Aug. 12, 1860, ex-president Fillmore said that “while he deemed it needful to legislate cautiously in all matters connected with public morals, and to avoid coercive measures affecting religion, the right of every citizen to a day of rest and worship could not be questioned, and laws securing that right should be enforced.” And the Christian Statesman of Dec. 15, 1871, speaking of the general disregard of the Sabbath [Sunday] in the arrangements for welcoming the Grand Duke Alexis, says:— “How long will it be before the Christian masses of this country can be roused to enact a law compelling their public servants to respect the Sabbath?”