Defective Reasoning by Editor

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Oct 16, 1879

Defective Reasoning.

By Editor

THOSE who are opposed to the Religious Amendment to the Constitution consider it dangerous to their liberties, and we think their fears are well founded. We have no sympathy with lawlessness nor infidelity; but we believe even infidels have some rights which Christians are bound to respect. But those who favor an amendment exult over the fears of their opponents, and even profess to find in those fears an argument for the correctness of their aims. Quoting from the Banner of Light, the Evangelical Repository remarks:—

"These quotations seem to indicate one of our strongest weapons as a Christian people. Few are able to teach us more clearly on this point than our enemies. What they most dread is sure to be what we shall find most effective. Now scarcely anything sets the Index, or the Boston Investigator, or the Banner of Light, so quickly in trepidation, as a movement in favor of the religious amendment to the Constitution. This is the battery which, once established in its place, they consider almost impregnable. Ought not the hesitating, therefore, to ask themselves whether the use of such an instrumentality is not proper, and highly desirable, in the conflict with evil? Are not our opponents instructive, though unconscious, guides in this matter?"

These and further remarks are quoted approvingly by the Christian Statesman. As an argument we cannot approve them. Were the question one of the triumph of Christianity and the downfall or restriction of infidelity, we should espouse the cause with all the zeal we could command. But we do not believe that infidelity will be lessened, or the cause of Christianity advanced by the movement. Just step back a few centuries, and suit this argument to Italy or Spain, and it will prove as pertinent and as logical as it appears in the Statesman. Imagine we are quoting from an organ of "the church," thus:—

"In regard to the efficiency of the holy Inquisition, few are able to teach us more clearly than our enemies. What they most dread is sure to be what we shall find most effective for the correction of heresy—the highest known crime. Scarcely anything sets the enemies of the church in such trepidation as a movement for the establishing of the Inquisition. This is the battery which, once firmly established, they consider almost impregnable. Ought not the hesitating, therefore, to ask themselves whether the use of such an instrumentality is not proper, and highly desirable in the church's conflict with evil? Are not our opponents instructive, though unconscious, guides in this matter?"

The Repository, or Statesman, cannot justly complain of the comparison, for was not the Inquisition established for the glory of God, and for the advancement of the cause of Christianity? Was not its design to prevent the nations from being overrun with infidels and heretics? Was it not that the governments of earth might thereby acknowledge their loyalty to Christ? And was not the burning of heretics, such as Jews, the very essence of piety, and hence styled an auto de fe, or, act of faith? What more than this is the aim of the advocates of the Religious Amendment to the Constitution?

But they may urge that their action has no such tendency. What mean, then, the following remarks by a well-known advocate of this Amendment?—

"But it may be asked, would not the Jew be denied equality of rights by legislation protecting the Christian Sabbath, and ignoring the Jewish? The answer is, We are not a Jewish but a Christian nation; therefore, our legislation must be conformed to the institutions and spirit of Christianity. This is absolutely necessary from the nature of the case."

And what mean the words of another of its adherents, more prominent than the writer just quoted, when he said that he would treat all who persisted in keeping the seventh day to the exclusion of the Sunday, whether Jews or professed Christians, as he would insane people; let them alone while they were quiet and disturbed nobody, but by means of an asylum or otherwise prevent their disturbing anybody if they proved to be troublesome? These are strong words to be spoken in advance by people professing such lamb-like principles. See Rev. 13:11. The Romanists never spoke their intentions so plainly, even if their intentions were formed, before the power was in their hands.

According to such writers, it is consistent with "the spirit of Christianity" to ignore the rights and conscientious convictions of those who presume to obey the fourth commandment just as it was spoken and written by Jehovah—just as it now stands, unrepealed and unaltered, in the statutes of Heaven. But it is the spirit of such a Christianity as made bonfires of Bibles because they tended to uphold heresy! such a Christianity as made "Bartholomew's day" a thought of terror and lighted the fires of Smithfield.

We pity those who are so blinded as to advocate a movement which so directly tends to the demoralization of the churches and the persecution of the truth. And we pity those who oppose it without the blessed hope of divine help and deliverance in the day of trial. From both parties we must stand aloof. We sympathize with neither, and we expect sympathy from neither. Our hope is in the Mighty One who will ever remember his covenant with them that keep his commandments.