THE CONSTITUTION by C. W. S.

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 1, 1877

THE CONSTITUTION.

By C. W. S.

The Evolution, a paper lately started in New York, proposes a convention for the revision of the Constitution of the United States. It argues that the Constitution was framed for a smaller nation than ours has now become, and that the fact, that amendments have been made, and others proposed, points to the desirableness of a general revision. It says, “Congress is but poorly fitted for the task of overhauling the Constitution, . . . and the work should be intrusted to a body composed, in the main, of a different class.”

The Christian Statesman, in commenting upon the same, says, “We do not join, however, in the demand for such a convention. Desirable as it may seem on many accounts, the nation is not ready for it. We are just entering on the most important controversy of our whole history—the discussion of the relation which we bear as a nation to the Christian religion. Until that question has been practically settled, in some decisive way, as the question of slavery was settled by the war, we do not wish to see such a convention. Perhaps, when we reach the centennial anniversary of the adoption of our present constitution, in the year 1887, we may have reached the solution of the many questions involved in this one great issue. If so, we should be glad to see that date signalized by the careful and solemn revision of the great instrument under which we have lived so long.”

Whether this revision will be delayed till 1887, we cannot say; but a powerful element is at work to bring it to pass in due time, and every year adds to its power and influence. In the same number of the Statesman is an extract from the Christian Advocate, “the great official newspaper of the Methodist Episcopal Church,” from which we quote the following:—

“Our government is Christian de facto. It is true, it does not recognize Christianity in all possible ways, but it does in ways sufficiently numerous and fundamental to make it, and label it, a ‘Christian government.’ As examples of these ‘ways’ it mentions the facts that all oaths are administered on the Bible, chaplaincies are instituted in legislatures, &c., ‘that the Christian Sabbath is recognized and protected,’ no court of justice being allowed to sit on that day, or contract made on that day being binding, &c.”

But the Statesman does not like to allow that the nation is quite as thoroughly Christian as the Advocate makes it. It says, “We deem it necessary also to say that while the American government is unquestionably Christian in a certain sense, it is by no means thoroughly or consistently so. And our Constitution or fundamental law is not distinctly Christian at all. It is the fruit and product of Christianity, as all justice and liberty in modern society are, but it contains no recognition of the source from which itself and all such beneficent instruments, have flowed. It contains no acknowledgment of the truth or the authority of the Christian religion, which alone can preserve to us these inestimable blessings. It supplies no legal basis for these very Christian features of the government, out of which the Advocate weaves its argument, and when they are assailed, as they are, constantly and bitterly, it gives them no protection. Nay, the Constitution itself is constantly employed as the great weapon of assault upon them, and with no inconsiderable success. Therefore the controversy and struggle for the maintenance of these features of our government, must eventually lead, if successful, to the religious amendment of the Constitution. This is inevitable, just because ours is a constitutional government, and all great questions must be finally settled, as was the debate between slavery and freedom, by constitutional provision. The work of the National Reform Association, which is ‘to maintain existing Christian features in the American government and to secure a religious amendment to the Constitution of the United States,’ seems to us, therefore, eminently patriotic and statesmanlike.”

The Statesman would have the Constitution so amended as to put “these very Christian features of the government” on a “legal basis,” that “when they are assailed” they may be protected by law. When the “Christian Sabbath,” the main “feature” in the case, finds itself thus protected, it will not be slow in asserting its importance, and defending its rights.

The Advocate, however, puts the case so strong as to make these “features” not particularly dependent upon the State, but the State upon the “features.” These are its closing words:—

“Christianity asks no favor of the State, any more than gravitation asks favor of matter. It can take care of itself and matter too. Christianity asks no protection. You might as well talk of protecting the ocean, the atmosphere, the light of the sun, gravitation, or electricity. They can protect themselves and their subjects too. Christianity is not dependent upon the State, but the State is dependent upon Christianity. And so we demand the admission and recognition of Christianity as the grand life-giving and conserving power, without which the State is doomed.” C. W. S.