150 THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY.
trines, but giving the churches the privilege of enforc-
ing by civil law the laws, institutions, and usages of re-
ligion according to the faith of tha 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 ac-
knowledge Almighty God as the author of the nation’s ex-
istence and the ultimate source of its authority, Jesus Christ
as its Ruler, and the Bible as the supreme rule of its con-
duet,” and thus indicate that this is a Christian nation, and
place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages, on an un-
deniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.’
“Now the question arises, If all this were accom-
plished, 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, it both of
these questions be answered in the negative, then what
would be the existing state of things? Could it be de-
fined ?
“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 ave fully established,
and to deny this is only to trifle with language. But
again, you cannot distinguish between ‘ull 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
THE BEGINNING OF THE END. 151
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 New York Independent, in January, 1875,
showed up the inconsistency of this movement m 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 th: 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.
«Tn 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 na-
tion. Co
“ Because the people are substantially all Christians,
we have a right, and have need, to make the Constitu-
tion Christian, to check our powerful element of unbe-
lievers.
“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 ef-
fect, its object being to check infidelity.
«Tt 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.
«Tt is meant to have no practical effect, and therefore
will be of great use to us. oo
“ We want to recognize God, and Christianity as our
national duty to Deity; but intend to give no effect to