Restoration of the Papacy.
By Editor
LAST week we showed that the National Reform movement, if successful, would be the union of Church and State in this Government. And we showed that in the union of all churches and organizations in favor of the Sunday, and its enforcement by law, lies the assurance of the success of the National Reform movement. This movement being carried forward by Protestants, when it succeeds, being the formation of the union of Church and State, it will be a likeness to the Papacy, an image to the beast. It is true that its advocates deny that it has the slightest tendency toward a union of Church and State; and argue that it is merely for the recognition and establishment by law of the Christian religion, of Christianity in the abstract, with no reference whatever to any particular church, and that, consequently, it cannot be a union of Church and State. But that is all that Constantine did. He simply made the Christian religion, Christianity in the abstract, the religion of the Empire. And that has been always viewed as the union of Church and State. But whatever it was, either in theory or in fact, there is one thing about it which admits of no shadow of dispute, that is, out of it grew the Papacy. And when this nation, following in the steps of Constantine, makes Christianity the religion of the State, out of such action will grow the living image of the Papacy—the image of the beast. This result is just as certain as that "like causes produce like effects." History does repeat itself, and that it is going to do so in this matter we deem just as certain as that two and two make four. This brings us then to the question, Will there not be persecution? Assuredly there will be. In the very nature of the case that must be the inevitable result. When the question as to what constitutes Christianity becomes a matter of judicial decision instead of conscientious conviction, such decisions to be of any force at all must be respected. And if there should be any who decline to accept a Christianity that is thus made to order, the decision of the court must be enforced. Of course in the idea of the court, and of the majority, such enforcement would not be persecution, oh no,—it would only be punishment for contempt of court. Now Sunday being the one question upon which all classes unite, that can be wielded by the National Reform leaders; Sunday being the one question upon which turns the whole Constitutional Amendment movement,—when Sunday becomes the national sabbath, and laws are enacted for the enforcement of its observance upon all, without exception, as the Christian sabbath, then to refuse to keep it is to disobey the law; and therefore, if the law, or the amendment, is to be of any effect at all such dissidents must be compelled to keep it. Because this having been constitutionally declared to be a Christian nation, and Sunday being the Christian sabbath—the great badge of our national profession—for a person to refuse to keep it is to deny Christianity, and so to place himself beyond the protection of the Government. Not only beyond its protection, but subject to its severest displeasure; because as it is, and will be, held that all the judgments that come upon the Nation are because of the desecration of Sunday, whoever refuses to observe it thereby becomes doubly guilty—guilty not only of violating the law but of bringing disaster and perhaps death upon the innocent, and therefore how can punishment be too severe? Especially so when the disobedience is persisted in in spite of penalties; lighter penalties will be laughed at, heavier ones will be defied, and if the Nation is to maintain its position there will be nothing left for it to do but to rid itself of such persons. It will not matter in the least that in defense of their conduct they cite the plain letter of the law of God, and of the Constitution itself, that, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;" the State, at the dictation of the Christian Church, will have declared that Sunday is the sabbath; this declaration must stand, the State cannot yield to a few seventh-day fanatics, and the preservation of the State will be held to depend upon its riddance of them. Of course such action would not, on the part of the State, be considered persecution, but only punishment for violation of the law, and for obstinate rebellion. Again, the purpose of the Religious Amendment is to declare that God is Sovereign. Then when the amendment has been made, the argument will be this: 1. God is now Constitutionally Sovereign. 2. "The keeping of the sabbath is an acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of God over us." 3. Sunday is declared by national law to be the sabbath. 4. Conclusion, whoever refuses to keep Sunday denies the sovereignty of God. That is the inevitable conclusion. There can be no other from the premises. And these are the premises which even now are maintained by the Religious Amendment Party. But, when God shall have been Constitutionally declared to be the Sovereign of this Government, to deny and refuse to submit to this sovereignty as defined by the law will be treason. Then if the State is to maintain its position, what is there left for it to do but to impose the penalty which attaches to treason? There can be no other alternative. This is exactly the length to which the Nation will be driven just as sure as it adopts the Religious Amendment to the Constitution; and the adoption of the amendment we consider is as sure as that this is a nation. This last step, like all the others, would not be considered by the authorities as persecution, it would be but the punishment of treason. But all such argument in justification of such actions, is well named by Robert Baird in his "Religion in America," when he calls it a "miserable excuse." Here are his words:— "The rulers of Massachusetts put the Quakers to death, and banished the 'Antinomians' and 'Anabaptists,' not because of their religious tenets but because of their violations of the civil laws. This is the justification which they pleaded, and it was the best they could make. Miserable excuse! But just so it is; wherever there is a union of Church and State, heresy and heretical practices are apt to become violations of the civil code, and are punished no longer as errors in religion, but infractions of the laws of the land. So the defenders of the Inquisition have always spoken and written in justification of that awful and most iniquitous tribunal."—P. 69. To arrive at treason by the course which we have marked would not be the first instance in America. Two hundred and forty years ago, in New England, Christianity, in the garb of Congregationalism, was the religion of the land, and says Bancroft:— "Since a particular form of worship had become a part of the civil establishment, irreligion was now to be punished as a civil offense. The State was a model of Christ's kingdom [the very thing which the National Reformers declare that this Government shall now be made by the Religious Amendment] on earth; treason against the civil Government was treason against Christ. . . . The creation of a national uncompromising church led the Congregationalists of Massachusetts to the indulgence of the passions which had disgraced their English persecutors; and Laud was justified by the men whom he had wronged."—History of the United States, chap. 10, under 1651, July 20. But, although the "miserable excuse" may be made, that such punishments are only for infractions of the civil law, the fact remains that all such conduct on the part of the State is persecution; and for the very good reason that the State has no business8to have any such civil laws; the State has no right to make religion a part of the civil law. But all these evils always have followed, and they always will follow, such an illicit union. Gibbon's words are fitting advice to-day to those men who seek for the Religious Amendment to the Constitution:— "It is incumbent on the authors of persecution previously to reflect whether they are determined to support it in the last extreme. They excite the flame which they strive to extinguish; and it soon becomes necessary to chastise the contumacy, as well as the crime, of the offender. The fine which he is unable or unwilling to discharge, exposes his person to the severity of the law; and his contempt of lighter penalties suggests the use and propriety of capital punishment."—Decline and Fall, chap. 37, par. 35. That the authors of persecution will support it in the last extreme is a foregone conclusion, because none but religious bigots ever attempt it, and they are always ready to go to any length that circumstances may demand, in support of whatever degree of power it may be with which they succeed in clothing themselves. Now what connection with the Papacy or its restoration has this Religious Amendment and its outcome? Just this, the Sunday institution, the protection of which is the main object of the amendment, is the institution par excellence of the Papacy, it rests solely on the authority of the Papacy. No man can present any authority of Scripture for the observance of Sunday; and all attempt to do so is only a perversion of Scripture. The keeping of Sunday by Protestants, "is an homage they pay in spite of themselves to the authority of the Catholic Church;" so says "the Church" and Protestants cannot deny it. Therefore when American Protestantism, and its allied powers, by national enactment enforce upon all the observance of Sunday, it enforces the observance of a papal institution, and compels men to honor and obey the Papacy. And so he "causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed." The cruel culmination to which we have traced the working of the Religious Amendment, when it shall have been carried, is the inevitable logic of the question; and the justness of our deduction is confirmed by the prophecy which we are discussing. "And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." Rev. 13:15. The course which we have outlined in this article is the one which will be pursued in the working of the Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Very few people believe it. But it is the truth if nobody at all believes it. Events themselves will confirm what we here have shown, or else the events of all history have been enacted in vain and no lesson can be drawn from what has been. We have yet more to say upon this subject.