Progress of the Religious-Amendmentists.
Some years ago we had the privilege of attending an annual meeting of the National Association which has for its object a Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In the opening address the President, after speaking of the fourth article of the Constitution, said:— "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—an effective guard against a union of church and State." At that time we did all in our power to impress upon the minds of the advocates of the Religious Amendment the impossibility of preserving the fourth Article and the first Amendment of the Constitution, and at the same time carrying into effect the Amendment for which they ask. Their "platform" demands that "all Christian laws, usages, and institutions" be placed upon "an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land." An amendment covering all this would require appropriate legislation to make it operative; that is, Congress would have to make laws enforcing "all Christian usages, laws, and institutions." If anybody can tell us how this may be done while the first Amendment of the Constitution remains in force, they will be welcome to our columns for that purpose. The Christian Statesman, the organ of that Association, speaking of certain members of Congress who traveled on Sunday, said that no one would be permitted to hold any office who thus violates the "Christian Sabbath," if the Amendment is adopted for which they are working. This would be directly contrary to the fourth Article of the Constitution. Radical changes must be made in the Constitution as it now stands to accomplish the object they have in view. Notwithstanding this, notwithstanding the reverence felt for the Constitution, and the long-standing fear of a union of church and State, the Sunday sentiment is growing so fast that we expect all will be sacrificed in its behalf. As an indication of the progress in this direction we notice an article in the Christian Statesman by Dr. Milligan, an earnest advocate of the Religious Amendment, in which he openly repudiates the first Amendment. The reader may be surprised to learn the ground on which he bases his plea. It is this: Guiteau, the assassin, claims that he was inspired to kill the President; of course it was a religious act; and being a religious act, no one has authority, under the present Constitution, to restrain him from the performance of it! Incredible as it may seem, we state the truth. These are his words:— "I believe that under a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States he cannot be punished. The law that would punish his act would prevent the free exercise of his religion. This is really his plea, and to this moment he justifies his act as a religious obligation which he owed to God and his country. I do not justify the Constitution nor the deed committed by the assassin; but if the doctrine of the Constitution be correct his act cannot be condemned. No government has a right to authorize a false religion or to guarantee to its subjects the right to dishonor God or violate his law under the name of religion. Government has no right to punish a man for his belief, but it has a right and it is its duty to restrain his acts whenever they violate either the first or second table of the moral law of God. Until this government defines in its Constitution what is religion, in the understanding of this nation, the polygamy and the blood atonement of the Mormons, the licentiousness of the Oneida Community, and every other wild extravagance, even to the solemn murder of the best of Presidents, will be practiced in its sacred name. Guiteau richly deserves to die, but the Constitution which educated him to believe that he might murder the President under the delusion that it was an act of religion which could not be punished, needs to be amended." No man of education and study could possibly utter such absurdities unless he was bewildered by the influence of a hobby. All the "cranks" are not on Guiteau's side. But our object is to call attention to the rapid strides which are being made toward a union of church and State. That which was disowned a few years ago is now openly advocated now. They are becoming more consistent. Their open demand now is that Congress shall make laws concerning the establishment of religion, and restraining from the free exercise thereof. And thus the nation is nearing the time when "the image of the beast" shall be made. Prophecy is fulfilling. But the Lord has spoken on the subject. Happy are they who hearken to his words.