THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY.
By Uriah Smith
THE BEGINNING OF THE END—CONTINUED.
To show the strong convictions of many minds that the conflict here indicated is inevitable, we present some further extracts from the Index. In its issue of Feb. 12, 1874, it says:— "Yet in this one point the Christianizers show an unerring instinct. The great battle between the ideas of the State and the ideas of the church will indeed be fought out in the organic law of the nation. The long and bitter conflict of chattel-slavery with free industry began in the world of ideas, passed to the arena of politics, burst into the hell of war, and expired in the peaceful suffrages by which Freedom was enthroned in the Constitution. The old story will be repeated; for it is the same old conflict in a new guise,—though we hope and would fain believe that the dreaded possibility of another civil war is in fact an impossibility. But that the agitation now begun can find no end until either Christianity or Freedom shall have molded the Constitution wholly into its own likeness, is one of the fatalities to be read in the very nature of the conflicting principles. The battle of the Amendments is at hand; a thousand minor issues hide it from sight; but none the less it approaches year by year, month by month, day by day. Cowardice to the rear—courage to the front!" The sentiment here expressed, that "the agitation now begun can find no end until either Christianity or Freedom [by which the Index means infidelity,] shall have molded the Constitution wholly into its own likeness," is becoming the settled conviction of many minds. It is not difficult to foresee the result. Infidel, the Constitution can never become; hence, it will become wholly the instrument of that type of Christianity which the Amendmentists are now seeking. Again the Index says:— "The central ideas of the Church and of the Republic are locked in deadly combat—none the less, because the battle ground to-day is the invisible field of thought. To-morrow the struggle will be in the arena of politics, and then no eye will be so blind as not to see it." At the Pittsburg Convention, in 1874, "Dr. Kieffer said that this movement was more political than ecclesiastical, appealing to the patriotism of all classes alike, and should be accepted by all. Dr. Hodge said it was in no sense sectarian, and the ends it sought could be accepted by one denomination as well as by another—by the Catholic as well as by the Protestant. He said it was destined to unite all classes. And their work was all in this direction." The following from the Index, we copy from the Christian Statesman, of Jan. 2, 1875. We do not endorse its statements as applied to real Christianity, but it probably expresses the view which will be taken of this matter by the churches generally, and so may be regarded as an indication of the course that will be pursued by them. While the political religionist can see in present movements the prelude of a mighty revolution, we believe it to be the same that students of prophecy have for years been led by the word of God to expect. The Index says:— "Nothing could be more apparent, to one who intelligently followed the argument from its own premises, than that this movement expresses at once the moral and the political necessities of Christianity in this country. It is not a question of words, but rather a question of the vital interests of great institutions. Christianity must either relinquish its present hold on the government,—its Sunday laws, its blasphemy laws, its thanksgivings and fasts, its chaplaincies, its Bible in schools, etc.,—or else it must secure the necessary condition of retaining all these things by inserting some guarantee of their perpetuity in the National Constitution. Looking simply at the small present dimensions of the movement,—at the fewness of its devoted workers, the paucity of attendants at the late Convention, and the indifference of the public at large,—one is justified in dismissing it from consideration as of no immediate importance. But, whoever is qualified to detect great movements in their germs, and to perceive that instituted Christianity is in vast peril from the constant inroads of rapidly spreading disbelief of dogmatic Christianity,—whoever is able to discern the certainty that the claims of Christianity to mold political action in its own interest must sooner or later be submitted for adjudication to the supreme law of the land, by which they are not even verbally recognized;—will not fall into the superficiality of inferring the future fortunes of this movement, either from the mediæval character of its pretensions, or the present insignificance of its success. It may possibly be that the Christian churches do not really care for their own existence, and are prepared to surrender it without a struggle; but we do not so read history." "So soon as they come to comprehend fully the fact that their legal 'Sabbath,' their Bible in schools, and all their present legal privileges, must one by one slip away inevitably from their grasp, unless they defend them in the only possible way by grounding them on Constitutional guarantees, it seems to us an irresistible conclusion from history and experience that they will arouse themselves to protect these possessions as infinitely important. If they do not, they have achieved a degree of moral rottenness, cowardice, and hypocrisy which we are very slow to attribute to them. These champions of a Christianized Constitution are to-day the POLITICAL BRAIN of the Christian church. Conceding their premises, which are simply those of the universal Evangelical communion, it is impossible to deny their conclusions. It is these premises that we dispute—not the logicalness of the conclusions themselves; and although we hold that the same premises, if further carried out, must lead to the Roman Catholic position expressed in the Vatican decrees; we none the less admit the necessity of traveling that road from the starting-point, if it is once fairly entered upon. Hence we are as strongly convinced as ever that the Christian Amendment movement contains the germ of a demand that must sooner or later be heard asserted with perilous emphasis, by the body of orthodox Christian churches." The character of this movement is thus described by one who was an eye witness at the Pittsburg Convention:— "They show determination to make the movement popular, and to reach the feelings of the people by every means. In their speeches, they alternate with the most impassioned earnestness and gravest argument the sharpest wit and even laughable puns and incidents. Staid 'Reverends' clap their hands in applause as heartily as I ever saw done in any kind of gathering, and Old School Presbyterian Doctors of Divinity, who have generally been noted for clerical dignity, take the greatest delight in raising the cheers of the crowd by their keen thrusts and witticisms. The Commercial was publicly recommended as giving the official report, and of the speech of the President of Washington and Jefferson College, it said, 'Dr. Hays' address was received with frequent marks of approbation, and his witty points drew forth shouts of laughter.' Judging from what I have seen, the standard of piety is not to be elevated by this work."—J. H. Waggoner, in Review, of Feb. 17, 1874. Between the professions of this Association and the objects which they are openly laboring to obtain, there is an utter inconsistency as the following considerations will show. In the Review of March 24, 1874, the writer last quoted says:— "We are sometimes perplexed to account for the singular operations of the human mind. When we see men of good natural ability, and of superior privileges of mental and moral culture, persistently clinging to the weaker side in argument, and seeming able to discover light only on the darkest side of a proposition, or endeavoring to sustain themselves by taking contradictory positions, our charity is taxed to the utmost to give them credit for the ability they seem to possess, and for the integrity of purpose they claim. Seldom have our reflections been more forcibly turned in this direction than in viewing the course pursued by the advocates of the Religious Amendment. A late number of the Christian Statesman, speaking of the Seventh-day Adventists, says:—
"'From the beginning of the National Reform movement, they have regarded it as the first step toward the persecution which they as keepers of the seventh day will endure when our Sabbath laws are revived and enforced. One cannot but smile at their apprehensions of the success of the movement without harm a hair of their heads, but their fears are sincere enough for all that.'"
Pursuing the line of argument into a consideration of the question whether there is anything in the professions of the Amendment party calculated to change our opinion in this respect, he continues:— "If a profession of good motives and of a desire to steer clear of a union of Church and State on the part of the Amendment party could give us assurance on this point, then might we cease to notice this subject. On this point they are very explicit. A few quotations will suffice to present their claims. Said Hon. Mr. Patterson in the Pittsburg Convention:—
'Be not misled by the assertion that the movement agitated by this Convention tends to religious intolerance, to wedding Church and State. No such tendency exists. On the contrary, this movement claims nothing but to secure in the preamble of our National Constitution an acknowledgment of the supremacy of God and the Christian character of our nation, such as is now generally and authoritatively conceded to be the law of our land.'" "This, surely, is lamb-like enough to throw us all off our guard. The following remarks by President Brunot (pronounced Bruno) on taking the chair are equally innocent to view:—
'The fourth Article of the Constitution declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," and the first amendment in the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We have not proposed to change these. We deem them essential, in connection with the amendment we ask, to the preservation of religious liberty, and, with it, an effective guard against a union of Church and State.'"
"And again: 'The attempt to destroy the inalienable right of freedom of conscience in religion in this our favored land would meet with its very first organized resistance from this association.'" "And Dr. Kerr said:—
'We want no union of Church and State. Let that question be raised in this country and there is no element of the opposition that would rise against it that would be more decided and determined than that represented in this Convention. We wish no restraint of the rightful liberties of any man.'" "These utterances are pleasant to read, and doubtless they and others like them have had much to do in enlisting so strong an interest in favor of the Amendment. And were these sayings, or those of like nature, all that they had put forth, we should feel constrained to regard the men and their work in a light somewhat different from that in which we now view them."