Neither would a similar acknowledgment on the part of the State, involve it in denominational favoritism, or expose it to the danger of being finally clogged with an ecclesiastical establishment. Indeed it no more follows, that such concessions on the part of the State implies a tendency to its ultimate union with the Church, than that the avowal on the part of our general government, of certain broad, and commonly received political principles, necessarily involves a tendency to interference on the part of the National with the State Governments. What, for instance, has the general government of the United States to do with the private rights, and personal prerogatives of the citizens of the several confederate States? It is well known with how much jealousy the movements of the National Legislature are watched, in reference to aught that inclines to interference with State rights. And yet no one has ever thought of complaining at the avowal of the great first principles of political orthodoxy, set forth in the glorious Declaration of Independence, and reiterated a thousand times since. Perfect security is felt in the solemn guaranty of the National Constitution that no such interference shall ever be attempted. So too might the nation be made to feel equally secure against the future introduction of a General Church Establishment, even though the National Constitution might avow, or silently assume the cardinal doctrines of revealed religion. Altogether therefore the apprehension that such an avowal, on the part of the State, would necessarily be the first step towards an ultimate union of Church and State, must be dismissed as unfounded and absurd. 'There is as much reason to apprehend a combination of the National Government with the American Temperance Union, for the purpose of making its principles the religion of the land. What christian denomination would be favored or patronized by such an avowal of religious truth as the objectors would forbid? What denomination can claim God as exclusively its Lord? Whose Bible are the sacred Scriptures? Which is distinguished by holding more than the rest, to man's moral accountability? These questions require no answer. And yet the apprehensions of the objectors anticipate such changes in the religious, or rather denominational interests of our country, as are far less likely to occur, than a dissolving of the State Government, into one Consolidated confederacy. For before ever the fears entertained or affected with reference to this result, can be realized, some one of the many christian persuasions found among us must have so swollen its population, as to be able to prevail at the ballot-box, or in the battle-field, against the combined strength

of all the rest, backed by myriads of non-religionists always ready to join in the resistance of ecclesiastical ambition. In deed according to the rule of human probabilities, there is far more reason to fear that our civil and religious liberties may, at no very distant day, become a prey to the devouring fury of rabid infidelity, or the gorging ambition of political demagogues, than suffer harm in a single interest from the aspirations of the Christian Church. Before any existing or imaginary form of Religion can become dominant here, or secure its temporal aggrandizement by being elevated to the dignity and prerogatives of a National Church, greater violence must be done to the General and State constitutions and laws, deeper and stronger prejudices be overcome in the national mind and heart, and altogether a mightier revolution take place in all the political and religious convictions of the great mass of our citizens, than there are any rational grounds for anticipating. In order therefore to quell those rising fears of ecclesiastical usurpation, or shame them out of the mind, it is only necessary to consider how few of the fifteen millions of Protestants of our land, or even of the two millions of Roman Catholics, could be found to favor any attempts that might be contemplated in this direction; and still more how earnestly the millions that have no sympathy with the Church, would contend, to the last extremity of resistance, against the execution of such a scheme.

This objection therefore forms no valid reason why our civil government should not avow its belief in the cardinal principles of the Christian Religion.

But would not the Government be thus involved in an interference with the religious views and convictions of its individual citizens? As is well known almost every variety of religious opinion exists among us. Independently of the diversity of sentiment prevailing among those who are not identified with any religious profession or creed, our nominally christian population is distributed among some fifty already existent denominations, numbering each from a few millions to a few tens of members, and are continually subdividing into others ever new appearing. Besides these we have among us not a few Jews, some thousands of Indians, and possibly a dozen or two Mohammedans. To all these now, it is said the Government has guaranteed equal civil and religious rights. It is solemnly pledged to extend the strong arm of political protection over all alike. As a Government they are all equally its citizens, and as citizens should all be equally esteemned. All therefore may claim protection in the free enjoyment and exercise of their re

ligious convictions and worship, whatever they may be, so long as these do not jeopardize or discommode the rights of others.

Certainly no one would think of questioning a word of this, or denying the rights thus claimed on behalf of every citizen of the land. But what has all this to do with the inference to be drawn from it? How would it interfere with any of these rights for the Government to do all that we believe to be desirable, and that we hold her bound to do according to the positions maintained in answer to the first objection? Is there a Jew or Greek, or Turk, or Indian in the land, who would or could justly complain, if our National or our State Constitutions expressed assent to the doctrine of God's existence, or of His sovereignty and universal Providence? Might they not all enjoy their several religions, without the least molestation, even if Government avowed itself, in some such general way, favorable to the leading tenets of Christianity? Would the Turk be constrained to love the Koran less, because the Government revered the Bible more? Would the Israelite's faith in Moses and the Prophets be at all infringed upon, because our national code believed besides in Christ and the Apostles? Would it require them to chant less joyfully, or to pray with suppressed fervor ?

The objection assumes more than the premises allow. Government does indeed guarantee to every citizen, protection in the enjoyment of his religious rights, non-interference with his religious convictions. And this guaranty should be kept inviolate. But does Government hereby surrender her right, or betray her duty, to recognize the fundamental doctrines of that system of religion which is most heartily believed to be the true one? Before ever the followers of Mohammed, or the disciples of Zoroaster or of Fo select this country for their abode, they know its predominant religious character, and are assured by our laws of nothing more than protection in the enjoyment of their relig. ious rights. More than this they have no right to demand, and no reason to expect. If they choose to make a christian land their country and their home, they can certainly not require it to study all their sacred folios in order carefully to avoid offending them by enactments impliedly prejudicial to their private religious fancies. Otherwise our legislators would need to acquaint themselves very minutely with the mysteries of solar theology, and the hidden secrets of astrology, before they could venture to prepare a single report, or draw up one act for adoption. But the truth is, that excepting in the case of the denominations of Sabbatarians, no religious community, has ever dreamed of urging a complaint against the favor thus indirectly shown

to Christianity, by its recognition of some general religious truths. Whatever complaints have been made in the case, have come from those rather, who care as little for Mohammed as for Moses, and far less for both than for themselves.

This then brings us to the real point of difficulty in this whole argument. When the undisguised truth is spoken, it will reveal the fact, that the restless and radical spirit of Infidelity, in its variously assumed forms, is the underground volcanic cause, of whatever commotion may agitate the public mind upon this important question. The controversy is not and never has been between the different religious denominations of the land. They almost universally agree in sentiment upon this subject. Strong as their sectarian prejudices may be, and mournful as their mutual jealousies may have been, they are strangers to any serious fears that either might by any possibility become the reigning religion of the Nation. The petitions which gave rise to the Sunday Mail's Report furnish satisfactory proof of this.

The great question then to be decided in this case is, whether the obligations of civil government to Infidelity and Irreligion, or to the religious Indifferentism of the land, are such as to forbid its avowal of belief in certain general religious tenets. This question, it is trusted, need not long remain unanswered. In point of fact we shall soon see that our Government has unequivocally answered it already. And but little reflection is required to convince all open to conviction, that the course thus pursued is in full agreement with every principle of equity and moral right. For the demands of Infidelity, and of those who ask that nothing may be intimated or done by the State which shall affect their opinions of religion, are manifestly such as Government cannot comply with, without transgressing those very limits of neutrality within which she is required to confine herself. For if the Creator of the world is the legitimate Sovereign of all its intelligent and moral inhabitants, and if His Divine Sovereignty extends not only to men in their individual capacity, but to communities and nations, then the duty of a Government with reference to a formal recognition of this Sovereignty is undeniable. Whenever therefore such a recognition is withheld, or upon such political grounds as have already been assigned is pronounced inexpedient and inconsistent with the spirit of free institutions, the doctrine of the Divine Supremacy is virtually repudiated, a silent decision is passed in favor of athe ism, or of deism, and thus again the Government betrayed into a transgression of the very limits by which liberalists would have its actions bounded.

In this dilemma then it is for Government to choose its alternative, by those rules which truth, justice, and profound wisdom may dictate. Seeing the impossibility of maintaining such neutrality as some demand, it must decide upon the relative_merits of these conflicting claims in view of their bearing upon the true well-being of the country. If Infidelity and Irreligion are honestly believed to be more salutary to a nation than Christianity, if their prevalence, according to the testimony of past history, and present facts, is more likely to promote our political prosperity, if in proportion as our citizens become infidel or deistic we may expect the nation at large to advance in intelligence, in virtue, and in social happiness, why then Government, as a purely civil institution, might feel itself called upon to cast the weight of its moral influence into the scale of atheism. On the contrary, however, if there is good reason to believe that Government owes more of its past success, and present prosperity to the various moral and social influences exerted by christianity, than to any other source, that the future condition of the nation will be flourishing only in proportion as her citizens are pervaded and governed by the spirit of that religion, and finally that the highest civil and social interests of the union are vitally bound up with those of christianity, then, upon the same purely political grounds, must the Government feel bound to avow itself a christian government.

To those who are aware of the looseness of the prevailing popular opinions upon this subject, and of the craft and dili gence, with which many who are hostile to the christian religion and the church, are endeavoring to have those nominally liberal sentiments confirmed in the popular mind, no apology need be offered for the space which has been devoted to the consideration of its more abstract merits. However self-evident the positions we have assumed may seem to be to some, the truth is that they are often virtually and practically surrendered as erroneous. It is to be feared that not a few of our best and most virtuous citizens, have, without due reflection, let themselves be betrayed into the belief, that the maxim, " render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," really means, that Caesar has nothing to do with God. Hoodwinked by the sophistry of those who represent Divine truths and relig ious organizations as always and inseparably connected, they have permitted themselves to be hurried into the persuasion, that the Civil Government had better avoid all reference to religion. The pernicious tendency of this false political theology must be manifest upon the least earnest consideration. Instead therefore