CHRISTIAN STATESMAN TRACTS No. 6

                                          ANSWERS
                                     TO OBJECTIONS
                                            TO THE
                              RELIGIOUS AMENDMENT
                                             OF THE
                        UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

                           BY THE REV. D. M'ALLFSTER.

        THE arguments in favor of the Religious Amendment movement are many
and weighty. These are seldom touched by opponents. It is difficult to deny
that a nation has a moral character and accountability, and ought,
therefore, to acknowledge the Supreme Moral Governor of the universe and
his moral laws. The very nature and. functions of a nation are such as to
bring it into direct relationship with God and his government, and thus
with Christ, to whom all power in heaven and earth is committed. If so, is
it not reasonable that God, and Christ, and the Bible should be
acknowledged in the nation's fundamental law?   This, and numerous
arguments like it, have rarely been controverted.
        But there are objections urged by many who will not attempt to meet
the solid arguments advanced. It is easy to offer objections or
difficulties against any good cause, and it is well to have them presented.
If the cause is just, they can be met, and should be. For, though
objections against any measure can be of no great moment when the arguments
for it are unanswered and unanswerable; yet for the sake of every honest
objector, they should be candidly considered. It is proposed to state fully
and fairly the various objections offered against the Religious Amendment,
and present a brief and comprehensive answer to each. It may be all the
more important to do this, as even atrifling objection affords an
opportunity to present an important argument in pointed form.

                                        2
                        TWO CLASSES OF OBJECTIONS.
        Two essentially different classes of objections are offered. One
class is urged against the movement in its principles-its ideas of the
nature and functions of government, or at least, of a Constitution. The
other class concedes the correctness of the principles on which the
movement is based, but takes issue on grounds of prudence or expediency.
Any one who considers all the various objections will observe how
completely many of them neutralize and annihilate each other. This itself
is a sufficient answer to them. Mutually conflicting and self-destructive
objections cannot all be well taken. But let us examine all, even somewhat
trivial ones, taking up, first

OBJECTIONS ADMITTING THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED, BUT URGED AGAINST
                        THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE MOVEMENT.

                Objection 1.    The Constitution already acknowledges God.

        The objector says, substantially: " The proposed amendment is just
and proper, but it is unnecessary. God and Christianity are now
acknowledged in the fundamental law of the nation." And what is the proof
of such acknowledgment? The word oath, a passing reference to the Christian
Sabbath in the clause, "Sundays -excepted," making the Sabbath a dies non
in the reckoning of days during which the President may retain a bill for
approval, the mention of the common law, and the formula of date. These are
all. They hardly require notice. It may be said in brief, however, that the
mention of the Sabbath is simply an incidental allusion,  an evidence,
indeed, that there was a Sabbath known; but it is no acknowledgment of the
obligation of the Sabbath. The dating again is no part of the instrument.
It merely marks the time. And more than all else, the name of God was
excluded from the form of the President's oath, incorporated in the
Constitution. Can these features of the Constitution, with a mention of the
common law, be regarded as an adequate acknowledgment of the nation's
subjection to God and his government ? It is now almost universally
admitted that they are not religious acknowledgments at all. So completely
devoid is our Constitution of any religious character that multitudes of
both infidels and Christians agree in stating that it is no more Christian
than Mohammedan. As Ex-President Woolsey declared in his paper read before
the Evangelical Alliance, it needs no change to adapt it to a Mohammedan
nation. Admiring, as we do, the many excellencies of our Constitution, we
are constrained to admit this sad defect. If it is still claimed that an
acknowledgment of God and Chris
                                                3
tianity is in the Constitution, it must also be admitted that such an
acknowledgment, now dimly there at best, should be made so clear and
explicit that no room may be left for doubt. What is there rightfully ought
to be there indisputably.*
        Many of the very men who urge this objection, manifestly not well
satisfied with the result, immediately turn round and object to the
proposed amendment as oppressive, and an infringement of the rights of
conscience. When urged so inconsistently, this latter objection scarcely
deserves attention.     It will be considered, however, further on.

          Objection 2. The Amendment Movement strengthens the Hands of
Infidels.

        Infidels boast of the Constitution as devoid of any acknowledgment
of God, and as thus the"great bulwark of- infidelity. They plant themselves
on the Constitution as a document " untainted with superstition," and
demand that the Bible shall be expelled from the common schools, Sabbath
laws and the oath abolished, and thus the administration of the Government
be conformed to the Constitution. Now, it is said, ,admit that the
Constitution is without as acknowledgment of God and Christianity, and you
strengthen their hands. But the admission is already made. Not only such
men as Dr. Woolsey, but our officers of government, and our courts, admit
the same fact. To point out the religious defect of the Constitution is not
to strengthen the hands of infidelity. But to let the admitted defect
remain, is to do so. Opponents of Christianity justly maintain, that the
Constitution and the government should be in harmony. They are striving to
separate the government, in. its actual administration, as far from
Christianity as the written Constitution.       The only class of citizens
who meet squarely, fully and logically, the demands of anti-Christian
secularism, are the friends of the Religious Amendment, who would Have an
avowedly Christian Constitution for a Christian government. The true way to
weaken the hands of the infidel enemies of our Christian institutions of
government, is to place these institutions on an .undeniable legal basis in
the fundamental law of the nation.

        Objection 3. The Proposed Acknowledgment in the Written
Constitution
                                      is a very unimportant matter.

        "Why waste powder?" it is asked. "Strive to make the people
Christian. Will it make the nation any more Christian to insert so many
words in a paper document?" But what is put into the
____________________
* For another remark in this connection, see last page.

                                        4
Constitution, or what is left out of it, is not, and cannot be an
unimportant matter. Is the fundamental law of the nation unimportant? Is
not the question of the constitutionality of a measure a most important
question? Is it a matter of no moment that the determined and powerful
enemies of the Bible in the schools, of public fasts and thanksgivings, of
prayers in Congress and State Legislatures, of Sabbath laws, of the oath,
are persistently and too often successfully, assaulting these institutions
on the ground of their inconsistency with the Constitution? A written
Constitution should correspond to the unwritten Constitution of a nation,
that is, to its. laws and customs, its established usages and institutions.
If these have no basis in the Constitution, the power of its silence will
be used against them. This is a republican government. Is it not important
to have republican principles acknowledged in the Constitution? . All our
citizens are free. Is it unimportant to have universal freedom recognized
in the Constitution? Our government is, and always has been administered in
connection with Christianity. Is it any less important to have an
acknowledgment of God and the Christian religion in our fundamental law? We
must be consistent. We must soon determine our choice. We must either make
the unwritten Constitution of the nation, that is, the nation itself, like
the Constitution, non-Christian, or rather, as that necessarily means,
unchristian, or we must make our Constitution an explicitly Christian
Constitution for a Christian nation. Is it a matter of no moment which we
do?

        Objection 4. There is Danger, if the Issue is pressed, of an
Adverse Decision

        But the trouble is, the issue is being pressed. Multitudes of men
are organized all over the country to expel the Bible from the schools, and
break down every other Christian institution in the nation. The
Constitution is their weapon of offense. They violate our Sabbath laws, and
the Christian law of marriage and divorce, and again the Constitution is
their armor of defense. Mormonism, the communism of the Internationals,
every foe of our Christian laws, wields the Constitution as shield and
spear. Will it avert the danger to let these enemies go on unchallenged and
unresisted? Will the adverse decision be prevented by sitting still?
Already, Superintendents of Instruction and Courts have decided in their
favor. The friends of the Religious Amendment are meeting a hostile and
aggressive movement, and are attempting the only thorough and sufficient
resistance to the threatening assaults of -anti-Christian

                                                5
secularism. Do what we will, the issue will be pressed to its logical and
inevitable conclusion. It is the imperative duty of all Christian and
patriotic citizens to do their utmost that the decision which must soon be
made, may be worthy of a Christian nation.

                Objection 5.    At best, there is but little Prospect of
Success.

        This is an insuperable objection with too many. It is easy to talk
of devotion to truth and principles .Dr. McCosh has an eloquent passage, in
his lectures on Positivism, concerning fidelity to the cause of truth and
right when it is unpopular. But it is difficult to face public odium.
Thousands wait only to see the assurance of popularity and quick success,
and then they swell the ranks with loud acclaim. But will any man of true
earnestness and conscientiousness, will any genuine Christian, wait for
truth to become popular before he will advocate it? When there is bright
prospect of success, there will be little need of recruits. The true
soldier would blush to come rallying under the battle-marked flag, beside
the veterans of the-hard-fought conflict, just as the enemy are driven back
and the victory won.

                Objection 6.    The Movement puts the Cart before the
Horse.

        "Make the people all Christian, and the Constitution will take care
of itself." This pithy objection entirely misapprehends the aims of the
movement. Its friends would not have the Amendment until the people call
for it. They hold up the proposed Amendment as a flag under which all the
friends of the Christian institutions of the nation may rally.The question
of the true relation of civil government to religion will thus be discussed
throughout the whole country. There need be no fear of the cart's getting
before the horse. The people must awake to the dangers that threaten their
Christian institutions of government, and all that is best in the nation,
and determining that these shall be maintained, they will stop the boastful
mouth of infidelity by declaring this to be a Christian nation, and
registering in its Constitution the nation's purpose to govern itself
accordingly.
        But it is not necessary to wait to make every citizen a Christian
before doing this. We did not wait to make every citizen a friend of
universal freedom before inserting the acknowledgment of that truth in the
Constitution. The people who accept Christianity are  the controlling mass
of the nation to-day. Let them be aroused to the nation's need and duty,
and they have the pswer as well as the right to make the Constitution
clearly Christian in the natural and legitimate way.