Chapter IV: Part 4

It would be naturally looked for in some of the special characteristics of the papal power. Daniel, describing that power under the symbol of a little horn, speaks of it as waging a special warfare against God, wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking to change times and laws. The prophet expressly specifies on this point: "He shall _think_ to change times and laws." These laws must certainly be the laws of the Most High. To apply it to human laws, and make the prophecy read, "And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change human laws," would be doing evident violence to the language of the prophet. But to apply it to the laws of God, and let it read, "And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and laws of the Most High"--then all is consistent and forcible. The Septuagint reads, [Greek: nomos] (_nomos_), in the singular, "the law," which more directly suggests the law of God. So far as human laws are concerned, the papacy has been able to do more than merely "think" to change them. It has been able to change them at pleasure. It has annulled the decrees of kings and emperors, and absolved subjects from allegiance to their rightful sovereigns. It has thrust its long arm into the affairs of nations, and brought rulers to its feet in the most abject humility. But the prophet beholds greater acts of presumption than these. He sees it endeavor to do, what it was not able to do, but could only think to do; he sees it attempt an act which no man, nor any combination of men, can ever accomplish; and that is, to change the laws of the Most High. Bear this in mind while we look at the testimony of another sacred writer on this very point.

Paul speaks of the same power in 2 Thess. 2; and he describes it, in the person of the pope, as the man of sin, and as sitting as God in the temple of God (that is, the church), and as exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped. According to this, the pope sets himself up as the one for all the church to look to for authority, in the place of God. And now we ask the reader to ponder carefully the question how he can exalt himself _above_ God. Search through the whole range of human devices; go to the extent of human effort; by what plan, by what move, by what claim, could this usurper exalt himself above God? He might institute any number of ceremonies, he might prescribe any form of worship, he might exhibit any degree of power; but so long as God had requirements which the people felt bound to regard in preference to his own, so long he would not be above God. He might enact a law and teach the people that they were under as great obligations to that as to the law of God. Then he would only make himself equal with God. But he is to do more than this: he is to attempt to raise himself above him. Then he must promulgate a law which _conflicts_ with the law of God, and demand obedience to his own in preference to God's. There is no other possible way in which he could place himself in the position assigned in the prophecy. But this is simply to change the law of God; and if he can cause this change to be adopted by the people in place of the original enactment, then he, the law-changer, is above God, the law-maker. And this is the very work that Daniel said he should think to do.

Such a work as this, then, the papacy must accomplish according to the prophecy; and the prophecy cannot fail. And when this is done, what do the people of the world have? They have two laws demanding from them obedience: one, the law of God as originally enacted by him, an embodiment of his will, and expressing his claims upon his creatures; the other, a revised edition of that law, emanating from the pope of Rome, and expressing his will. And how is it to be determined which of these powers the people honor and worship? It is determined by the law which they keep. If they keep the law of God as given by him, they worship and obey God. If they keep the law as changed by the papacy, they worship that power. But further, the prophecy does not say that the little horn should set aside the law of God and give one entirely different. This would not be to change the law, but simply to give a new one. He was only to attempt a change, so that the law as it comes from God, and the law as it comes from the hands of the papacy, are precisely alike, excepting the change which the papacy has made therein. They have many points in common. But none of the precepts which they contain in common can distinguish a person as the worshiper of either power in preference to the other. If God's law says, "Thou shalt not kill," and the law as given by the papacy says the same, no one can tell by a person's observance of that precept whether he designed to obey God rather than the pope, or the pope rather than God. But when a precept that has been changed is the subject of action, then whoever observes that precept as originally given by God is thereby distinguished as a worshiper of God; and he who keeps it as changed, is thereby marked as a follower of the power that made the change. In no other way can the two classes of worshipers be distinguished. From this conclusion, no candid mind can dissent; but in this conclusion we have a general answer to the question before us, "What constitutes the mark of the beast?" THE MARK OF THE BEAST is THE CHANGE HE HAS MADE IN THE LAW OF GOD.

We now inquire what that change is. By the law of God, we mean the moral law, the only law in the universe of immutable and perpetual obligation, the law of which Webster says, defining the terms according to the sense in which they are almost universally used in Christendom, "The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai."

If, now, the reader will compare the ten commandments as found in Roman Catholic catechisms with those commandments as found in the Bible, he will see in the catechisms that the second commandment is left out, that the tenth is divided into two commandments to make up the lack of leaving out the second, and keep good the number ten, and that the fourth commandment (called the third in their enumeration) is made to enjoin the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribe that the day shall be spent in hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, and reading moral and pious books. Here are several variations from the decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them constitutes the change of the law intended in the prophecy? or, are they all included in that change? Let it be borne in mind that, according to the prophecy, he was to _think_ to change times and laws. This plainly conveys the idea of _intention_ and _design_, and makes these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the omission of the second commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and, hence, should not be numbered as a separate commandment. And, on the tenth, they claim that there is so plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments. So they make the coveting of a neighbor's wife the ninth commandment, and the coveting of his goods the tenth.

In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as God intended to have them understood. So, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation of the commandments, we cannot set them down as _intentional changes_. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment. Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the church. A few quotations from standard Catholic works will make this matter plain. In a work entitled, Treatise of Thirty Controversies, we find these words:--

"The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of
our Lord, and to be kept holy; you [Protestants], without any
precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only
authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose,
against this point, that the observation of the first day is
proved out of Scripture, where it is said, the first day of the
week. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. Have they not spun a
fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better
for purgatory, and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints,
and the like, they might have good cause, indeed, to laugh us to
scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath days in
which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should
be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it
decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or
abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded
everlastingly to be kept holy? _Not_ one of those is expressed in
the written word of God."

In the "Catholic Catechism of Christian Religion," on the subject of the third (fourth) commandment, we find these questions and answers:--

"_Ques._ What does God ordain by this commandment?

"_Ans._ He ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner, this day
on which he rested from the labor of creation.

"_Q._ What is this day of rest?

"_A._ The seventh day of the week, or Saturday; for he employed six
days in creation, and rested on the seventh. Gen. 2:2; Heb. 4:1,
&c.

"_Q._ Is it then Saturday we should sanctify in order to obey the
ordinance of God?

"_A._ During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but _the
church,_ instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of
God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so now we sanctify the
first, not the seventh, day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of
the Lord."

In "Abridgment of Christian Doctrine," we find this testimony:--

"_Ques._ How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts
and holy days?

"_Ans._ By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which
Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict
themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other
feasts commanded by the same church.

"_Q._ How prove you that?

"_A._ Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church's power
to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin."

In the "Catholic Christian Instructed," again we read:--

"_Ques._ What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable
to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?

"_Ans._ We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and
apostolic tradition.

"_Q._ Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for
the Sabbath?

"_A._ The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17;
Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2
Thess. 2:15. But the Scriptures do not in particular mention this
change of the Sabbath."

In the "Doctrinal Catechism," we find further testimony to the same point:--

"_Ques._ Have you any other way of proving that the church has
power to institute festivals of precept?

"_Ans._ Had she not such power, she could not have done that in
which all modern religionists agree with her--she could not have
substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week,
for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which
there is no scriptural authority."

And finally, W. Lockhart, late B.A. of Oxford, in the Toronto (Cath.) _Mirror,_ offered the following "challenge" to all the Protestants of Ireland; a challenge as well calculated for this latitude as that. He says:--

"I do, therefore, solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland to
prove, by plain texts of Scripture, the questions concerning the
obligation of the Christian Sabbath. 1. That Christians may work on
Saturday, the old seventh day. 2. That they are bound to keep holy
the first day, namely, Sunday. 3. That they are not bound to keep
holy the seventh day also."

This is what the papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics plainly acknowledge that there is no scriptural authority for the change they have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church; and they claim it has a token or mark of the authority of that church; the "_very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday_" being set forth as proof of its power in this respect. For further testimony on this point, the reader is referred to a tract published at the _Review_ Office, Battle Creek, Mich., entitled, "Who Changed the Sabbath?" in which are also extracts from Catholic writers, refuting the arguments usually relied upon to prove the Sunday Sabbath, and showing that its only authority is the Catholic church.

"But," says one, "I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath." A great many suppose so; and it is natural that they should; for they have been so taught. And while we have no words of denunciation to utter against any such for so believing, we would have them at once understand that it is, in reality, one of the most enormous of all errors. We would therefore remind such persons that, according to the prophecy, the only change ever to be made in the law of God, was to be made by the little horn of Dan. 7, and the man of sin of 2 Thess. 2; and the only change that has been made in it, is the change of the Sabbath. Now, if Christ made this change, he filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel and Paul--a conclusion sufficiently hideous to drive any Christian from the view which leads thereto.

But why should any one labor to prove that Christ changed the Sabbath? Whoever does this is performing a thankless task. The pope will not thank him; for if it is proved that Christ wrought this change, then the pope is robbed of his badge of authority and power. And no truly enlightened Protestant will thank him; for if he succeeds, he only shows that the papacy has not done the work which it was predicted that it should do, and so that the prophecy has failed, and the Scriptures are unreliable. The matter had better stand as the propheqy has placed it, and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth, had better be granted. When a person is charged with any work, and that person steps forth and confesses that he has done the work, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter. So, when the prophecy affirms that a certain power shall change the law of God, and that very power in due time arises, does the work foretold, and then openly claims that he has done it, what need have we of further evidence? The world should not forget that the great apostasy foretold by Paul has taken place; that the man of sin for long ages held almost a monopoly of Christian teaching in the world; that the mystery of iniquity has cast the darkness of its shadow and the errors of its doctrines over almost all Christendom; and out of this era of error and darkness and corruption, the theology of our day has come. Would it then be anything strange if there were yet some relics of popery to be discarded ere the reformation will be complete? A. Campbell (Baptism, p. 15), speaking of the different Prostestant sects, says:--

"All of them retain in their bosom, in their ecclesiastic
organizations, worship, doctrines, and observances, various relics
of popery. They are at best a reformation of popery, and only
reformations in part. The doctrines and traditions of men yet
impair the power and progress of the gospel in their hands."

The nature of the change which the little horn has attempted to effect in the law of God is worthy of notice. With true Satanic instinct, he undertakes to change that commandment which, of all others, is the fundamental commandment of the law, the one which makes known who the Law-giver is, and contains his signature of royalty. The fourth commandment does this; no other one does. Four others, it is true, contain the word God, and three of them the word Lord, also. But who is this Lord God of whom they speak? Without the fourth commandment it is impossible to tell; for idolaters of every grade apply these terms to the multitudinous objects of their adoration. With the fourth commandment to point out the Author of the decalogue, the claims of every false god are annulled at one stroke; for the God who here demands our worship is not any created being, but the One who created them all. The maker of the earth and sea, the sun and moon, and all the starry host, the upholder and governor of the universe, is the One who claims, and who, from his position, has a right to claim, our supreme regard in preference to every other object. The commandment which makes known these facts is therefore the very one we might suppose that power would undertake to change, which designed to exalt itself above God. God gave the Sabbath as a memorial of himself, a weekly reminder to the sons of men, of his work in creating the heavens and the earth, a great barrier against atheism and idolatry. It is the signature and seal of the law. This the papacy has torn from its place, and erected in its stead, on its own authority, an institution designed to serve another purpose.

This change of the fourth commandment must therefore be the change to which the prophecy points; and Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast! Some who have long been taught to regard this institution with reverence will perhaps start back with little less than feelings of horror at this conclusion. We have not space, nor is this perhaps the place, to enter into an extended argument on the Sabbath question, and an exposition of the origin and nature of the observance of the first day of the week. Let us submit this one proposition: If the seventh day is still the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment; if the observance of the first day of the week has no foundation whatever in the Scriptures; if this observance has been brought in as a Christian institution and designedly put in place of the Sabbath of the decalogue, by that power which is symbolized by the beast, and placed there as a badge and token of its power to legislate for the church, is it not inevitably the mark of the beast? The answer must be in the affirmative. But all these hypotheses can easily be shown to be certainties, See History of the Sabbath, and other works on the subject, published at the _Review_ Office. To these we can only refer the reader, in passing.

It will be said again, then all Sunday-keepers have the mark of the beast; then all the good of past ages who kept this day had the mark of the beast; then Luther, Whitefield, the Wesleys, and all who have done a good and noble work of reformation, had the mark of the beast; then all the blessings that have been poured upon the reformed churches have been poured upon those who had the mark of the beast. We answer, _No_! And we are sorry to say that some professedly religious teachers, though many times corrected, persist in misrepresenting us on this point. We have never so held; we have never so taught. Our premises lead to no such conclusions. Give ear: The mark and worship of the beast are enforced by the two-horned beast. The receiving of the mark of the beast is a specific act which the two-horned beast is to cause to be done. The third message of Rev. 14, is a warning mercifully sent out in advance to prepare the people for the coming danger. There can therefore be no worship of the beast, nor reception of his mark, such as is contemplated in the prophecy, till it is enforced by the two-horned beast. We have seen that _intention_ was essential to the change which the papacy has made in the law of God, to constitute it the mark of that power. So _intention_ is necessary in the adoption of that change to make it on the part of any individual the reception of that mark. In other words, a person must adopt the change, knowing it to be the work of the beast, and receive it on the authority of that power, in opposition to the requirement of God.

But how with those referred to above who have kept Sunday in the past, and the majority of those who are keeping it to-day? Do they keep it as an institution of the papacy? No. Have they decided between this and the Sabbath of the Lord, understanding the claims of each? No. On what ground have they kept it, and do they keep it? They suppose they are keeping a commandment of God. Have such the mark of the beast? By no means. Their course is attributable to an error unwittingly received from the church of Rome, not to an act of worship rendered to it.

But how is it to be? The church which is to be prepared for the second coming of Christ must be entirely free from papal errors and corruptions. A reform must hence be made on the Sabbath question. The third angel proclaims the commandments of God, leading men to the true in the place of the counterfeit. The dragon is stirred, and so controls the wicked governments of the earth that all authority of human power shall be exerted to enforce the claims of the man of sin. Then the issue is fairly before the people. On one hand, they are required to keep the true Sabbath; on the other, a counterfeit. For refusing to keep the true, the message denounces the unmingled wrath of God; for refusing the false, earthly governments threaten them with persecution and death. With this issue before the people, what does he do who yields to the human requirement? He virtually says to God, I know your claims, but I will not yield to them. I know that the power I am required to worship is anti-Christian; but I yield to save my life. I renounce your allegiance, and bow to the usurper. The beast is henceforth the object of my adoration; under his banner, in opposition to your authority, I henceforth array myself; to him, in defiance of your claims, I henceforth yield the obedience of my heart and life. Such is the spirit which will actuate the hearts of the beast-worshipers; a spirit which insults the God of the universe to his face, and is prevented only by lack of power from overthrowing his government and annihilating his throne. Is it any wonder that Jehovah denounces against so Heaven-daring a course the most terrible threatening that his word contains?

Chapter Eleven.

The Beginning Of The End.

We have now found what, according to the prophecy, is to constitute the image which the two-horned beast is to cause to be made, and the mark which it will attempt to enforce. The movement which is to fulfill this portion of the prophecy, is to be looked for in the popular churches of our land. First, a union must be effected between these churches, with some degree of coalition also between these bodies and the beast power, or Roman Catholicism; and, secondly, steps must be taken to bring the law of the land to the support of the Sunday Sabbath. These movements the prophecy calls for. And the line of argument leading to these conclusions is so direct and well-defined that there is no avoiding them. They are a clear and logical sequence from the premises given us.

When first the application of Rev. 13:11-17 to the United States was made, over twenty years ago, these positions respecting a union of the churches and a grand Sunday movement were taken. But at that time, no sign appeared above or beneath, at home or abroad, no token was seen, no indication existed, that such an issue would ever be made. But there was the prophecy, and that must stand. The United States government had given abundant evidence, by its location, the time of its rise, the manner of its rise, and its apparent character, that it was the power symbolized by the two-horned beast. There could be no mistake in the conclusion that it was the very nation intended by that symbol. This being so, it must take the course, and perform the acts, foretold. But here were predictions which could be fulfilled by nothing less than the movement above named respecting Church and State, and the enforcement of the papal Sabbath as the mark of the beast.

To take the position at that time that this government was to pursue such a policy and engage in such a work, without any apparent probability in its favor, was no small act of faith. On the other hand, to deny or ignore it, while admitting the application of the symbol to this government, would be in accordance with neither Scripture nor logic. The only course for the humble, confiding student of prophecy to pursue in such cases, is to take the light as it is given, and believe the prophecy in all its parts. So the stand was boldly taken; and open proclamation has been made from that day to this, that such a work would be seen in these United States. With every review of the argument, new features of strength have been discovered in the application; and amid a storm of scornful incredulity, we have watched the progress of events, and waited the hour, of fulfillment.

Meanwhile, spiritualism has astonished the world with its terrible progress, and shown itself to be the wonder-working element which was to exist in connection with this power. This has mightily strengthened the force of the application. And now, within a few years past, what have we further seen? No less than the commencement of that very movement respecting the formation of the image and the enactment of Sunday laws, which we have so long expected, and which is to complete the prophecy, and close the scene.

Reference was made in chapter nine to the movement now on foot for a grand union of all the churches; not a union which arises from the putting away of error and uniting upon the harmonious principles of truth, but simply a combination of sects, each retaining its own particular creed, but confederated for the purpose of carrying out more extensively the common points of our faith. This movement finds a strong undercurrent of favor in all the churches. And men are engaged to carry it through who are not easily turned from their purpose.

And there has suddenly arisen a class of men whose souls are absorbed with the cognate idea of Sunday reform, and who have dedicated every energy of their being to the carrying forward of this kindred movement. The "New York Sabbath Committee" have labored zealously by means of books, tracts, speeches, and sermons, to create a strong public sentiment in behalf of Sunday. Making slow progress through moral suasion, they seek a shorter path to the accomplishment of their purposes through political power. And why not? Christianity has become popular, and her professed adherents are numerous. Why not avail themselves of the power of the ballot to secure their ends? Rev. J.S. Smart (Methodist), in a published sermon on the "Political Duties of Christian Men and Ministers," expresses a largely-prevailing sentiment on this question, when he says:--

"I claim that we have, and ought to have, just as much concern in
the government of this couniry as any other men.... We are the mass
of the people. Virtue in this country is not weak; her ranks are
strong in numbers, and invincible from the righteousness of her
cause--invincible if united. Let not her ranks be broken by party
names."

A "National Association" has been in existence for a number of years, which has for its object the securing of such amendments to the National Constitution as shall express the religious views of the majority of the people, and make it an instrument under which the keeping of Sunday can be enforced as the Christian Sabbath. This Association already embraces within its organization a long array of eminent and honorable names: Governors of our States, Presidents of our colleges, Bishops, Doctors of Divinity, Doctors of Law, and men who occupy high positions in all the walks of life.

In the Address issued by the officers of this Association, they say:--

"Men of high standing, in every walk of life, of every section of
the country, and of every shade of political sentiment and
religious belief, have concurred in the measure."

In their appeal, they most earnestly request every lover of his country to join in forming auxiliary associations, circulate documents, attend conventions, sign the memorial to Congress, &c., &c.

In their plea for an amended Constitution, they ask the people to

"Consider that God is not once named in our National Constitution.
There is nothing in it which requires an 'oath of God,' as the
Bible styles it (which, after all, is the great bond both of
loyalty in the citizen and of fidel in the magistrate); nothing
which requires the ob of the day of rest and of worship, or which
re its sanctity. If we do not have the mails carried and the
post-offices open on Sunday, it is because we have a
Postmaster-General who respects the day. If our Supreme Courts are
not held, and if Congress does not sit on that day, it is custom,
and not law, that makes it so. Nothing in the Constitution gives
Sunday quiet to the custom house, the navy yard, the barracks, or
any of the departments of government.

"Consider that they fairly express the mind of the great body of
the American people. This is a Christian people. These amendments
agree with the faith, the feelings, and the forms of every
Christian church or sect. The Catholic and the Protestant, the
Unitarian and the Trinitarian, profess and approve all that is here
proposed. Why should their wishes not become law? Why should not
the Constitution be made to suhf and to represent a constituency so
overwhelmingly in the majority?...

"This great majority is becoming daily more conscious not only of
their rights, but of their power. Their number grows, and their
column becomes more solid. They have quietly, steadily opposed
infidelity, until it has, at least, become politically unpopular.
They have asserted the rights of man and the rights of the
government, until the nation's faith has become measurably fixed
and declared on these points. And now that the close of the war
gives us occasion to amend our Constitution, that it may clearly
and fully represent the mind of the people on these points, they
feel that it should also be so amended as to recognize the rights
of God in man and in government. Is it anything but due to their
long patience that they be at length allowed to speak out the great
facts and principles which give to all government its dignity,
stability, and beneficence?"

Thus for several years a movement has been on foot, daily growing in extent, and importance, and power, to fulfill that portion of the prophecy of Rev. 13:11-17, which first calls forth the dissent of the objector, and which appears from every point of view the most improbable of all the specifications; namely, the erection of the image and the enforcing of the mark. Beyond this, nothing remains but the sharp conflict of the people of God with this earthly power, and the eternal triumph of the overcomer.

An Association, even now national in its character, as already noticed, and endeavoring, as is appropriate for those who have such objects in view, to secure their purposes under the sanction of the highest authority of the land, the National Constitution, already has this matter in hand. In the interest of this Association there is published, in Philadelphia, a semi-monthly paper called the _Christian Statesman_, in advocacy of this movement. Every issue of that paper goes forth filled with arguments and appeals from some of the ablest pens in our land, in favor of the desired Constitutional amendment. These are the very methods, by which, in a country like ours, great revolutions are brought about; and no movement has ever arisen so suddenly as this to so high a position in public esteem with certain classes, and taken so strong a hold upon their hearts.

Says Mr. G.A. Townsend (New World and Old, p. 212):--

"Church and State has several times crept into American politics,
as in the contentions over the Bible in the public schools, the
Anti-Catholic party of 1844, &c. Our people have been wise enough
heretofore to respect the clergy in all religious questions, and to
entertain a wholesome jealousy of them in politics. The latest
_politico-theological movement_ [italics ours] is to insert the
name of the Deity in the Constitution."

The present movements of this National Association and the progress it has made luay be gathered somewhat from the report of the proceedings of the Convention held in Cincinnati, Jan. 31, 1872.

From the Report of the Executive Committee it appeared that ten thousand copies of the proceedings of the Philadelphia Convention have been gratuitously distributed; that a General Secretary (Rev. D. McAllister) has been appointed, with a salary of $2,500; and that a long and elaborate paper by Prof. Taylor Lewis, of Union College, in advocacy of the ideas and objects of the Association, will soon be published; that the number of the Executive Committee is recommended to be increased to twenty-five, besides including all presidents of auxiliary associations; that $2,177 have been raised the past year by the Association, and that a balance of over $90 remains in the treasury. Nearly $1,800 were raised at this Convention.

The Business Committee recommended that the delegates to this Convention hold meetings in their respective localities to ratify the resolutions adopted at Cincinnati; that twenty thousand copies of the proceedings of this Convention be published in tract form; and that the friends of the Association be urged to form auxiliary associations. All these recommendations were adopted.

The resolutions passed were as follows:--

"_Resolved_, That it is the right and duty of the United States, as a nation settled by Christians, a nation with Christian laws and usages, and with Christianity as its greatest social force, to acknowledge itself in its written Constitution, to be a Christian nation.

"_Resolved_, That, as the disregard of sound theory always leads to mischievous practical results, so in this case the failure of our nation to acknowledge, in its organic laws, its relation to God and his moral laws, as a Christian nation, has fostered the theory that government has nothing to do with religion but to let it alone, and that consequently State laws in favor of the Sabbath, Christian marriage, and the use of the Bible in the schools, are unconstitutional.

"_Resolved_, That we recognize the necessity of complete harmony between our written constitution and the actual facts of our national life; and we maintain that tho true way to eflect this undoubted harmony is not to expel the Bible and all idea of God and religion from our schools, abrogate laws enforcing Christian morality, and abolish all devout observances in connection with government, but to insert an explicit acknowledgment of God and the Bible in our fundamental law.

"_Resolved_, That the proposed religious amendment, so far from tending to a union of Church and State, is directly opposed to such union, inasmuch as it recognizes the nation's own relations to God, and insists that the nation should acknowledge these relations for itself, and not through the medium of any church establishment."

Mr. F.E. Abbott, editor of the _Index_, Toledo, O., who was present at the foregoing Convention, and presented a protest against its aims and efforts, says of those who stand at the head of the movement:--

"We found them to be so thoroughly sincere and earnest in their
purpose that they did not fear the effect of a decided but
temperate protest. This fact speaks volumes in their praise, as men
of character and convictions. We saw no indication of the artful
management which characterizes most conventions. The leading
men--Rev. D. McAllister, Rev. A.M. Milligan, Prof. Sloane, Prof.
Stoddard, Prof. Wright, Rev. T.P. Stephenson--impressed us as able,
clear-headed, and thoroughly honest men; and we could not but
conceive a great respect for their motives and their intentions. It
is such qualities as these in the leaders of the movement that give
it its most formidable character. They have definite and consistent
ideas; they perceive the logical connection of these ideas, and
advocate them in a very cogent and powerful manner; and they
propose to push them with determination and zeal. Concede their
premises, and it is impossible to deny their conclusions; and since
these premises are axiomatic truths with the great majority of
Protestant Christians, the effect of the vigorous campaign on which
they are entering cannot be small or despicable. The very respect
with which we were compelled to regard them only increases our
sense of the evils which lie germinant in their doctrines; and we
came home with the conviction that religious liberty in America
must do battle for its very existence hereafter. The movement in
which these men are engaged has too many elements of strength to be
contemned by any far-seeing liberal. Blindness or sluggishness
to-day means slavery to-morrow. Radicalism must pass now from
thought to action, or it will deserve the oppression that lies in
wait to overwhelm it."

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 may not believe that the amendment was 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 indorsed 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."

But it may be asked how the Sunday question is to be affected by the proposed Constitutional Amendment. Answer: The object, or, to say the least, one object of this amendment is to put the Sunday institution on a legal basis, and compel its observance by the arm of the law. At the National Convention held in Philadelphia, Jan. 18 and 19, 1871, the following resolution was among the first offered by the Business Committee:--

"_Resolved_, That, in view of the controlling power of the
Constitution in shaping State, as well as national, policy, it is
of immediate importance to public morals, and to social order, to
secure such an amendment as will indicate that this is 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, specially those which secure a proper oath, and
which protect society against blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, and
polygamy."

By Sabbath-breaking is meant nothing else but Sunday-breaking. In a convention of the friends of Sunday, assembled Nov. 29, 1870, in New Concord, Ohio, the Rev. James White is reported to have said: "The question [of Sunday observance] is closely connected with the National Reform Movement; for until the government comes to know God and honor his law, we need not expect to restrain Sabbath-breaking corporations." Here again the idea of the legal enforcement of Sunday observance stands uppermost.

Once more: The Philadelphia _Press_ of Dec. 5, 1870, stated that some Congressmen, including Vice-president Colfax, arrived in Washington by Sunday trains, Dec. 4, on which the _Christian Statesman_ commented as follows (we give italics as we find them):--

"1. _Not one of those men ivho thus violated the Sabbath is fit to
hold any official position in a Christian nation_. * *

"He who violates the Sabbath may not steal because the judgment of
society so strongly condemns theft, or because he believes that
honesty is the best policy; but tempt him with the prospect of
concealment, or the prospect of advantage, and there can be no
reason why he who robs God will not rob his neighbor also. For this
reason, the Sabbath law lies at the foundation of morality. Its
observance is an acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of God over
us.

"2. _The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin_, because the
nation hath not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule
for our public servants, 'We charge you to serve us in accordance
with the higher law of God.' These Sabbath-breaking railroads,
moreover, are corporations created by the State, and amenable to
it. The State is responsible to God for the conduct of these
creatures which it calls into being. It is bound, therefore, to
restrain them from this as from other crimes, and any violation of
the Sabbath, by any corporation, should work immediate forfeiture
of its charter. And the Constitution of the United States, with
which all State legislation is required to be in harmony, should be
of such a character as to prevent any State from tolerating such
infractions of fundamental moral law.

"3. Give us in the National Constitution the simple acknowledgment
of the law of God as the supreme law of nations, and _all the
results indicated in this note will ultimately be secured_. Let no
one say that the movement does not contemplate sufficiently
practical ends."

From all this, we see the important place the Sabbath question is to hold in this movement--the important place it even now holds in the minds of those who are urging it forward. Let the amendment called for be granted, "and all the results indicated in this note," says the writer, "will ultimately be secured;" that is, individuals and corporations will be restrained from violating the Sunday observance. The acknowledgment of God in the Constitution may do very well as a banner under which to sail; but the practical bearing of the movement relates to the compulsory observance of the first day of the week.

Even now the question is agitated why the Jew should be allowed to follow his business on the first day after having observed the seventh. The same question is equally pertinent to all seventh-day keepers. A writer signing himself "American," in the Boston _Herald_ of Dec. 14, 1871, said:--

"The President in his late message in speaking of the Mormon
question, says, 'They shall not be permitted to break the law under
the cloak of religion.' This, undoubtedly, meets the approval of
every American citizen, and I wish to cite a parallel case, and
ask: Why should the Jews of this country be allowed to keep open
their stores on the Sabbath under the cloak of their religion while
I, or any other true American, will be arrested and suffer
punishment if we do the same thing? If there is a provision made
allowing a few to conduct business on the Sabbath, what justice and
equality can there be in any such provision, and why should it not
be stopped at once?"

And this question, we apprehend, will be very summarily decided, when once the Consitutional Amendment has been secured.

At a Ministerial Association of the M.E. church held in Healdsburg, Cal., April 26-28, 1870, Rev. Mr. Trefren, of Napa, speaking of S.D.A. ministers, said, "I predict for them a short race. What we want is law in the matter." Then, referring to the present movement for a law, he added, "And we will have it, too; and when we get the power into our hands, we will show these men what their end will be."

From a work recently published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, entitled "The Sabbath," by Chas. Elliott, Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of the North West, Chicago, Ill., we take this paragraph:--

"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."

There is no mistaking the import of this language: No matter if the Jew does not secure equal rights with others. We are not a Jewish nation, but a Christian; and all must be made to conform to what the majority decide to be Christian institutions. This affects all who observe the seventh day as much as the Jews. And we apprehend it will not be a difficult matter to lead the masses, whose prejudices incline them in this direction, to believe that it is "absolutely necessary" that all legislation must take such a form, and cause them to act accordingly.

Several years since, Dr. Durbin of the _Christian Advocate and Journal_; gave his views on this subject as follows:--

"I infer, therefore, that the civil magistrate may not be called
upon to enforce the observance of the Sabbath [Sunday] as required
in the spiritual kingdom of Christ; but when Christianity becomes
the moral and spiritual life of the State, the State is bound
through her magistrates to prevent the open violation of the holy
Sabbath, as a measure of self-preservation. She cannot, without
injuring her own vitality and incurring the divine displeasure, be
recreant to her duty in this matter."

At a meeting held at Saratoga Springs, Aug. 12, 1860, ex-president Fillmore said that "while he deemed it needful to legislate cautiously in all matters connected with public morals, and to avoid coercive measures affecting religion, the right of every citizen to a day of rest and worship could not be questioned, and laws securing that right should be enforced."

And the _Christian Statesman_ of Dec. 15, 1871, speaking of the general disregard of the Sabbath [Sunday] in the arrangements for welcoming the Grand Duke Alexis, says:--

"How long will it be before the Christian masses of this country
can be roused to enact a law compelling their public servants to
respect the Sabbath?"

A very marked and rapid change is taking place in public opinion relative to the proposed religious amendment of the Constitution. We have learned of instances of men who were at first openly hostile to the movement, now giving their influence for its advancement, and clamoring loudly for a Sunday law. And some who at first regarded it with indifference, are now becoming its warm partisans. As a sample of this change of feeling, the following paragraph from the _Christian Press_ of Jan, 1872, may be presented. The _Christian Press_ is the organ of the Western Book and Tract Society, Cincinnati, Ohio, and its editor, speaking of the National Association above referred to, says:--

"When this Association was formed, while we were prepared to bid it
God speed, we did not then feel that there was any pressing need
for the object sought; and as our mission was specially directed to
the Christianizing, enlightening and elevating, the masses of the
people, we have said little in our columns on the subject, being
assured that if the people are right, it is easy to set the
government right. The late combined efforts, however, of various
classes of our citizens to exclude the Bible from our schools,
repeal our Sabbath laws, and divorce our government entirely from
religion, and thus make it an atheistic government--for every
government must be for God or against him, and must be administered
in the interests of religion and good morals, or in the interests
of irreligion and immorality--have changed our mind, and we are now
prepared to urge the necessity for an explicit acknowledgment in
the National Constitution of the authority of God and the supremacy
of his law, as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments."

With the anti-Sunday movements of the present day, considering their associations, and the manner and object in and for which they are carried forward, we have no sympathy. They aim at utter no-Sabbathism, freedom from all moral restraint, and all the evils of unbridled intemperance--ends which we abhor with all the strength of a moral nature quickened by the most intense religious convictions. And while the indignation of the batter portion of the community will be aroused at the want of religious principle and the immorality attending the popular anti-Sunday movement, a little lack of discrimination, by no means uncommon, will on account of our opposition to the day, though we oppose it on entirely different ground, easily associate us with the class above-mentioned, and subject us to the same odium.

Meanwhile, some see the evils involved in this movement, and raise the voice of alarm. The _Christian Union_, Jan., 1871, said: