p. 29 | National Religion by M. E. Cornell

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 21, 1875

National Religion.

By M. E. Cornell

The movement tending toward a union of church and State by so amending the Constitution of the United States that it will enforce popular religious institutions and sentiments, is growing rapidly, being backed up by many men of influence and ability. More than twenty years ago these sentiments began to be whispered here and there; but now the thing is taking shape, and it is fast becoming a power in the land.

Nearly all Protestant expositors of prophecy admit that the “beast” of Revelation, 13th chapter, is a symbol of the papal power. That was a power that enforced upon the people what they called, “Christian institutions,” by the civil law. It was the civil power, legislating upon religious matters at the instigation of the popular religionists of that time.

The prophecy declares that an image will be made to that power. And we see it is already forming. But they cannot set up their image until the Republican Constitution is remodeled. As it now stands, oppressive State laws could not be enforced. When once that which now hinders is taken out of the way, then, as it was with the papacy, “that wicked will be revealed.”

That such an image will be made in this country is as certain as the sure word of prophecy. All can see its approach if they will.

Charles Beecher, in his very justly celebrated sermon on creeds, utters the following almost prophetic language:—

“And what do we see just ahead? Another general council! A world’s convention! Evangelical Alliance and universal creed!”

Daniel Ullman, Esq., of New York, in his celebrated speech on the anniversary of Washington’s birthday said, “We need a common religious sentiment—a consistent national sentiment.”

Dr. Lyman Beecher said: “There is a state of society to be formed by an extended combination of institutions religious, civil, and literary.”

These sentiments carried out will result in the enforcing of religious observances by law, and having a virtual union of church and State.

Many very learned and influential men, both politicians and ministers, are working hard for the proposed step toward a national creed and religion.

The National Association for the Amendment of the Constitution recently met in Boston, and the reports show that they are making rapid strides, at least in the boldness of their utterances. While they disclaim any intention of binding the consciences of any, they boldly pass a resolution which they must know would certainly oppress many conscientious people. They resolve that,

“This constitutional recognition of the connection of our Government with Christianity is necessary, not to sustain the Christian religion, but to aid in preserving and maintaining the Christian institutions and usages of our nation.”

How can they maintain the so-called Christian institution of Sunday-keeping except to have a stringent Sunday law? And this would oppress many, and they know it. But this is their intention; for they have several times plainly declared it.

One of the speakers, Rev. W. R. Clark, on the proposition, “The Demand for the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States a Moral Necessity,” said:—

“The enemies of Christianity have now pressed squarely in the issues of our civil life the question of the relation of Christianity to this Government. And it must be met. It can neither be evaded nor postponed. Two of our higher Courts have already decided that Christianity is no part of our common law, basing their decisions upon the non-recognition of God in the Constitution.”

In the same convention, Rev. F. E. Tower remarked:—

“All government rests at last on a religious basis. The chief and only reliable motive to which it appeals is a religious motive, viz.: the sense of moral obligation, which is quick and effective only in the presence (through faith) of the moral sovereign of the universe. Hence the universal belief of antiquity, that there can be no separation of religion and the State, was entirely correct. . . . Unless religion is to be shrivelled in its definition to the mere shell of ecclesiastical dogmas and rites, the theory that the State has nothing to do with it is an inversion of the truth.”

“Yet such is the impression carried by the unfortunate wording of the Constitution. Passages occur which are made to bear this meaning (though, probably, not intended), and the utter absence of any acknowledgment of God supports and warrants such an interpretation. And thus this great nation, Christian from its birth, and looked to as such from the four quarters of the globe, is made to assume the utterly suicidal and absurd position of religious neutrality. Neutrality in matters of religion! It is impossible, save to the atheist.”

M. E. CORNELL.