RELIGIOUS AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
By Editor
What It Is Meant to Mean; and What It Means.
JANUARY 25, 1894, Mr. Elijah W. Morse, congressman from Massachusetts, introduced, in the House of Representatives, the following joint resolution:— Proposing an amendment to the preamble of the Constitution of the United States, "acknowledging the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and nations." Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following amended form of the preamble of the United States be proposed for ratification by conventions in the several States, which, when ratified by conventions in three-fourths of the States, shall be valid as a part of the said Constitution, namely:— We, the people of the United States, devoutly acknowledging the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and nations, grateful to Him for our civil and religious liberty, and encouraged by the assurances of His Word to invoke His guidance, as a Christian nation, according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America. Upon this we wish to briefly comment, that our readers may see, if they so desire, something of what it means. But first of all let us say that we give the gentleman who introduced the measure, and the friends of the measure behind him, credit for sincerity in this matter. They doubtless believe that it would be for the best good of the country, would promote the Christian religion, and would honor God, to have such an amendment to our Constitution. They mean, doubtless, that it shall do all this, but intention counts for nothing toward the right when men are devotedly led by wrong principles. Belief in a counterfeit bill will not make it a genuine; Saul was no less a persecutor because he believed he was doing God's service. Nor will it save the United States from destruction to swallow the death potion, though her ill-instructed physicians believe it to be the antidote for all her ill. Now for a nation, a government, to acknowledge "the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and nations," sounds well; but to truly acknowledge such "authority" and "government" means to submit to God and obey his laws. And this evidently is what is designed; and if it could be done, it would be a blessing indeed. But, first of all, who shall decide what God's law is? What is the basis and rule of his government? Shall it be the revelation held by the Jews or the Christians? But the proposed amendment takes it for granted, basing it, probably, upon the Supreme Court decision of February 29, 1892, that this is a "Christian nation," and that our instruction and God's guidance must come in "His appointed way, through Jesus Christ." But here another question will arise. There are two great bodies of "Christians" in this country, Roman Catholics and Protestants. The former consider that their view of God is the only "appointed way." God's word as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church would be the "supreme authority" and "government of God," to which all men must bow or be considered traitors. But this would not be, say our Protestant friends. Protestants are greatly in the majority, and would therefore be dominant, and they would rule according to God's word. But what Protestants? "In all the affairs of men and nations" would cover all moral duties and obligations, over some of which, so considered, Protestants seem hopelessly divided. Who would interpret God's word? Who would point out "his appointed way"? Whose dictum would be the "supreme authority"? Would it be Protestant Episcopal, Protestant Methodist, Protestant Presbyterian, Protestant Congregational, Protestant Disciple, or Protestant Baptist? Some of these hold to the Old Testament, and some reject it; some practice sprinkling and reject immersion, and some reject sprinkling and believe immersion only to be baptism. Who would decide? and what tribunal would adjust the claims242between the warring factions over the religious spoils of this "Christian nation"? And, further, what treatment would heretics who might be equally honest, more devoted to Christ, and much less ambitious of earthly power, receive at the hands of such a government? It was under Protestant governments that Sir Thomas More was beheaded, Servetus was burned, and "witches" were hung. But we have no reason to believe that Protestants, though greatly in the majority, would hold the reins of government and be able to decide what is God's "appointed way." We have before shown in these columns how for several years the Roman Catholic Church has drawn more funds from the government for her Indian schools than all the Protestant churches combined, despite their most strenuous efforts. Rome holds the balance of power in America, and can dictate her terms to the majority of congressmen, and she knows it. Blind and ignorant indeed is that Protestant who cannot see it. What it would mean to "obdurate heretics" for a Roman tribunal to decide what was God's "appointed way through Jesus Christ," the history of more than a thousand years of blood and fire and flame sufficiently testifies. And in either view of the case, reader, whether the interpretation of God's government were made by Roman Catholic or Protestant, how much would such a Constitution tend "to establish justice"? Are not the rights of the heretic as precious as those of the State religionist? In the majority of cases in the past the heretic has been in the right. How would such a government "insure domestic tranquillity," or "form a more perfect union"? Such language, though not so meant, is the very essence of irony; and such a government is the deathblow to all "civil and religious liberty." Again: The government of God is spiritual; the religion of Jesus Christ is spiritual; the law of God is spiritual; Christianity is a spiritual force; and these can only operate upon men beneficially by voluntary submission on the part of the men, and the willing reception of the principles of God's truth in the heart. Civil governments never will—because they never can—become "Christian" governments; and every attempt to so become will—as it always has—result in division, strife, injustice, oppression, persecution, and every evil work. The above is not a tithe of what might be said; but we hope under God that it may be sufficient to show to the reader the evil which is in every such measure, and to warn him of the fearful and rapid strides this nation is taking to her everlasting ruin.