THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY.
By U. Smith
THE BEGINNING OF THE END—CONTINUED. WE continue to quote from the writer last mentioned last week:— “We come now to examine another class of expressions of a positive nature. What we have quoted is negative, a disclaimer, a relation of what they do not wish to do. Very explicitly have they stated their desires and intentions. True, we cannot reconcile what they have said under these two heads, and it is this which so perplexes us in regard to their professions. It is to be hoped that they will sometime attempt to show that their statements may be harmonized, or else confine their avowals to one side of the question, that all may understand, without study or doubt, just the position they occupy. “Dr. Stevenson, Corresponding Secretary of the National Association, and editor of the Statesman, in the opening address at the Convention, said:— “‘Through the immense largesses it receives from corrupt politicians, the Roman Catholic Church is, practically, the established church of the city of New York. These favors are granted under the guise of a seeming friendliness to religion. We propose to put the substance for the shadow, to drive out the counterfeit by the completer substitution of the true.’ “These words are somewhat ambiguous, but none the less important, on this subject; for, taken in any possible way, they are full of meaning. It may be a question whether this ‘seeming friendliness to religion’ is the shadow, and real friendliness to religion in politics is the substance, or whether the Catholic Church is the counterfeit and Protestants the true; but, in either case, the establishment of the church, or a church, or churches, more completely than at present, though practically existing now, is the object aimed at in this paragraph. The latter form, the establishment of the churches, appears to be the object, for in the next sentence he says:— “‘What we propose is nothing of a sectarian character. It will give no branch of American Christians any advantage over any other.’ “A remark made by Prof. Blanchard is a complement to the above. He has given us a definition of ‘union of Church and State’ as opposed by them. Thus he said:— “‘But union of Church and State is the selection by the nation of one church, the endowment of such a church, the appointment of its officers and oversight of its doctrines. For such a union none of us plead. To such a union we are all of us opposed.’ “In reading this, we are reminded of the turn taken by the spiritualists when they deny that they are opposed to marriage; they explain by defining marriage to be a union of two persons not to be regulated nor guarded by civil law, and which exists only as long as the parties are agreed thereto, requiring no law to effect a divorce! To such marriage the most lawless libertine would not object. We are sorry that the respectable advocates of the amendment take a position so nearly parallel to the above-cited position of spiritualists. They give a definition of union of Church and State such as no one expects nor fears; such, in fact, as is not possible in the existing state of the churches, and then loudly proclaim that they are opposed to union of Church and State! But to a union of Church and State in the popular sense of the phrase; a union, not of one church, but, of all the churches recognized as orthodox or evangelical; a union, not giving the State power to elect church officers nor to take the oversight of church doctrines, but, giving the churches the privilege of enforcing by civil law the laws, institutions, and usages of religion according to the faith of the churches, or to the construction put upon those institutions and usages by the churches—to such a union, we say, they are not opposed. They are essentially and practically, despite their professions, open advocates of union of Church and State. “President Brunot and others have referred to the first amendment to the Constitution as a safeguard against establishing a national religion. Yet in the face of this reference he says:— “‘We propose “such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States (or its preamble) as will suitably acknowledge Almighty God as the author of the nation’s existence and the ultimate source of its authority, Jesus Christ as its Ruler, and the Bible as the supreme rule of its conduct,” and thus indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages, on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.’ “Now the question arises, If all this were accomplished, would the Christian religion be established in and by this government? If it be answered that it would not, then another question: Would individuals be at liberty under the law of the land to disregard those Christian institutions and usages? If not, if both of these questions be answered in the negative, then what would be the existing state of things? Could it be defined?243 “This will never do; such talk is idle. To place Christian usages on a legal basis is to enforce them by law, and to enforce them is to ‘establish’ them. When they are placed on ‘an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land,’ they are fully established, and to deny this is only to trifle with language. But again, you cannot distinguish between ‘all Christian laws, institutions, and usages,’ and the Christian religion. By establishing them you establish it, of necessity. To deny this is to manifest a lack of discrimination or of candor. We speak with due respect, but we have to deal with facts of the greatest magnitude and importance, and which affect us in those things which we hold most sacred and dear. The advocates of this movement are able men. We hope they will not ignore these points, but so explain them as to reconcile themselves with themselves if it can be done.” The N. Y. Independent, in January, 1875, showed up the inconsistency of this movement in a few paragraphs so pointed and pungent that we quote them entire, as follows:— “This being a Christian nation, we have a right to acknowledge God in the Constitution; because, as things are now, this is not a Christian nation, and needs such recognition to make it one. “This having always been a Christian nation, we have a right to keep it such; and, therefore, we need this amendment, since hitherto, without it, we have only been a heathen nation. “In other words, we need to make this a Christian nation because we are already such; on the ground that if we do not make it such we are not a Christian nation. “Because the people are substantially all Christians we have a right and have need to make the Constitution Christian, to check our powerful element of unbelievers. “We mean to interfere with no man’s rights, but only to get certain rights, now belonging to all, restricted to Christians. “This religious amendment is to have no practical effect, its object being to check infidelity. “It is to interfere with no man’s rights, but only to make the unbeliever concede to Christians the right to rule in their interest, and to give up like claims for himself. “It is meant to have no practical effect; and, therefore, will be of great use to us. “We want to recognize God, and Christianity as our national duty to Deity; but intend to give no effect to such recognition—pleasing God by judicially voting ourselves pious and doing nothing more. “We shall leave all religions in equality before the law, and make Christianity the adopted religion of the nation. “Christianity, being justice, requires us to put down infidelity by taking advantage of our numbers to secure rights which we do not allow to others. “Justice to Christians is one thing, and to infidels another. “We being a Christian people, the Jewish and unbelieving portion of our people are not, of right, part of the people. “And so, having no rights which we, as Christians, are bound to respect, we must adopt this amendment in our interest. “Passing this act will not make any to be Christians who are not Christians, but it is needed to make this a more Christian nation. “The people are not to be made more Christian by it; but, since the nation cannot be Christian unless the people are, it is meant to make the nation Christian without affecting the people. “That is, the object of this amendment is to make the nation Christian without making the people Christians. “By putting God in the Constitution he will be recognized by nobody else than those who already recognize him; and, therefore, we need the amendment for a fuller recognition of him. “If we say we believe in God and Christ in the Constitution, it is true of those believing in him and a lie as to the rest; and, as the first class already recognize him, we want this amendment as a recognition by the latter class, so that our whole people shall recognize him. “Whether we have an acknowledgment of God in the Constitution or not, we are a Christian nation; and, therefore, it is this recognition of God that is to make us a Christian nation.” As to the probability of the success of this movement, there is at present some difference of opinion. While a very few pass it by with a slur as a mere temporary sensation of little or no consequence, it is generally regarded as a work of growing strength and importance, both by its advocates and opposers. Petitions and remonstrances are both being circulated with activity, and shrewd observers, who have watched the movement with a jealous eye, and heretofore hoped it would amount to nothing, now confess that it “means business.” No movement of equal magnitude of purpose has ever sprung up and become strong, and secured favor so rapidly as this. Indeed, none of equal magnitude has ever been sprung upon the American mind, as this aims to remodel the whole framework of our government, and give to it a strong religious cast—a thing which the framers of our Constitution were careful to exclude from it. They not only ask that the Bible, and God, and Christ, shall be recognized in the Constitution, but that it shall indicate this as “a Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages, in our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the nation.” Of course, appropriate legislation will be required to carry such amendments into effect, and somebody will have to decide what are “Christian laws and institutions.” From what we know of such movements in the past in other countries, and of the temper of the churches of this, and of human nature when it has power suddenly conferred upon it, we look for no good from this movement. From a lengthy article in the Lansing State Republican in reference to the Cincinnati Convention, we take the following extract:— “Now there are hundreds and thousands of moral and professedly Christian people in this nation to-day who do not recognize the doctrine of the Trinity, do not recognize Jesus Christ the same as God. And there are hundreds and thousands of men and women who do not recognize the Bible as the revelation of God. The attempt to make any such amendment to the Constitution would be regarded by a large minority, perhaps a majority, of our nation as a palpable violation of liberty of conscience. Thousands of men, if called upon to vote for such an amendment, would hesitate to vote against God, although they might not believe that the amendment is necessary or that it is right; and such men would either vote affirmatively or not at all. In every case, such an amendment would be likely to receive an affirmative vote, which would by no means indicate the true sentiment of the people. And the same rule would hold good in relation to the adoption of such an amendment by Congress or by the Legislatures of three-quarters of the States. Men who make politics a trade would hesitate to record their names against the proposed Constitutional Amendment, advocated by the leaders of the great religious denominations of the land, and endorsed by such men as Bishop Simpson, Bishop McIlvaine, Bishop Eastburn, President Finney, Prof. Lewis, Prof. Seelye, Bishop Huntington, Bishop Kerfoot, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Cuyler, and many other divines who are the representative men of their respective denominations.” Not only the representative men of the churches are pledged to this movement, but governors, judges, and many of the most eminent men of the land are working for it. Who doubts the power of the “representative men of the denominations” to rally the strength of their denominations to sustain this work at their call? We utter no prophecy of the future; it is not needed. Events transpire in these days faster than our minds are prepared to grasp them. Let us heed the admonition to “watch!” and, with reliance upon God, prepare for “those things which are coming on the earth.”