For the Christian Statesman.
By J. H. Waggoner
The Statesman, the organ of the “Religious Amendment” party, persists in treating with lightness the views, and as it says the fears, of Seventh-day Adventists. In its discussion with Elder Littlejohn, it gravely declared that the principles of the amendmentists were such that S. D. Adventists ought to unite with them to secure such an amendment to the Constitution. And it has constantly claimed that we are inconsistent, as advocates of order, morality, and Sabbath-keeping, in opposing their efforts to secure the very things we are advocating. That paper and their prominent speakers have ever represented that party as above all others consistent in their aims and actions. We must confess that we cannot see it in that light, but we honestly profess a willingness to be convinced. As that paper and the advocates of that movement have always professed a readiness to explain their positions, we request it to give us light on the following questions. 1. They have announced as their object to “place all Christian laws, usages, and institutions on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” Do they use the term “legal basis” in its obvious and ordinary sense, as that the observance of these institutions shall no longer be optional, as at present, but be enforced by legal process? To be consistent with all their past declarations this must be answered in the affirmative. 2. Do they hold that the observance of the first day of the week, is a “Christian institution,” to be placed on a legal basis, so that its observance shall be enforced by law on those who are not professedly Christians? Their repeated avowals have already answered this, but we wish them to notice it here in connection with the following:— 3. Do they, in common with the body of Christians both past and present, hold that baptism and the Lord’s supper are “Christian institutions”? 4. Is it their desire and intention to have these also enforced by civil process upon unbelievers when this amendment is secured? If they answer this in the affirmative, then we further inquire:— 5. Do they think that Christianity and its institutions will be honored and the cause advanced by compelling non-professors to observe baptism and the Lord’s supper? But if the fourth question shall be answered in the negative, then we inquire:— 6. Why do they thus discriminate between what they hold to be Christian institutions? And how, then, are we to trust their profession of honest consistency when they tell us that “all Christian institutions, laws, and usages,” are to be placed on a legal basis in this government. The Statesman will not deny the relevancy of these questions. And they will sometime have to be decided. They are important, and we should wish to understand their position thereon clearly before we could give our assent to their movement. We will not so far call in question the frankness of their profession as to doubt that they will early give us information on these queries.