of at once yielding to its plausible appeals, its progress should be anxiously watched. It has no right to demand unhesitating assent to its bold and novel assumptions. Least of all have the true friends of religion a right to yield unthinkingly to its impious demands. They should not fear the imputation of bigotry, or superstition, because they choose to require good reasons for embracing the views which it is attempted so hastily to force upon them. It is surely as commendable to be firm in adhering to the old and tried maxims of our fathers, as to be reckless in espousing the irreligious fancies of modern liberalists. As yet our political institutions may be safe. There are however omens sufficiently portentous of future evil, issuing from the very quarter from which this doctrine of non-government-religion proceeds, to wake up the slumbering friends of true civil order and social well-being, to suspicious vigilance. These omens should not be disregarded. It is far easier to retain sound principles now held upon this subject, than it would be to recover them when once lost.

Leaving then these general considerations, let us pass on to inquire briefly, into the relation which our political institutions actually sustain to religion. It has already been shown that there are two leading forms in which a Government may be related to Religion, the one by a formal union of the State with some ecclesiastical establishment, the other by a mere recognition, on the part of the State, of the fundamental doctrines of the true religion, and its general principles of morality. We have also seen that the latter by no means involves the former, nor yet a necessary tendency that way. Now it is in the latter respect alone that we maintain that our Government is committed in favor of that system of religion which characterizes Protestant evangelical christianity.

There are two main sources to which we must look for whatever evidence may be needed upon this subject. The first is to the action of the nation in its confederate capacity. This, in view of the peculiar relation sustained by the General to the State Government, must be expected to be very indefinite in a case like this. The second and more important source is the Constitutions and Laws of the several Commonwealths comprising the Republic.

Both these sources now furnish, in the first place, the most satisfactory evidence that our civil government does not discard, but most sincerely recognizes and respects religion in some of its leading principles.

Of this we find remarkably clear proof already in that great

and imperishable document from the adoption and issue of which our Republic dates its birth. In the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, the representatives of the Colonies, then already virtually sundered from the British government, and acting in the capacity of an independent Nation, avowed in the name of their constituents, their faith in a personal self-subsistent God, as the author of nature's laws, and yet himself distinct from and exalted above nature. The next paragraph opens with an explicit statement of this, among other "self-evident truths," viz: that this God of nature is the Creator of man, and that man as the creature can lay claim to no other rights than those with which his Maker has endowed him. "All men are created,, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." In a subsequent period the great doctrine of revealed religion touching the moral accountability of the creature to the Creator, and more especially of political governments to the King of kings is adopted with most solemn emphasis. It is contained in that earnest and devout appeal with which the Declaration closes. "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, Sc., &c. And, for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." When the circumstances under which this Declaration was made are duly considered, the avowal of setiments like these, and at such a time, must be allowed to be deeply significant. They are a most solemn pledge to the christian world at large, that the Government about to be established may be justly reckoned a friend of religion. If they are any thing more than the hypocritical flourish of pious professions, introduced for the purpose of propitiating the favor of christianity, they undoubtedly obligate the nation to the maintenance of so much of the christien system as they avow. That this was designed is self evident, and being so proves that the intention of the nation at the start was, not by any means to establish a Government which should be utterly independent of religion or indifferent to it, but one which should forever acknowledge God, and virtually maintain and promote the great fundamental truths of revealed religion. It is only in this view of the case, that we can at all fairly account for the fact, that in a document, which might very readily have excluded every allusion to religious sentiments, so many should be so distinctly announced.

In refutation however of all this, the position taken in the Constitution of the United States, might be appealed to, to prove that such an intention as is assumed above, is plainly repudiated, if it ever had been entertained. That position may be regarded as not simply neutral, but decidedly negative in its character. For when it provides, (Art. VI. Sect. 3), that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States ;" and again (Amend. Art. I.) enacts, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an estab lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" it does appear as though, in over anxiety to forestall any inclination even to the establishment of a national church, all recognition of religion under any form were studiously avoided. This, we are free to confess, is a remarkable feature in an instrument framed for the government of such a nation, and at such a time. It would indeed seem as though the solemn vow, previously made in a season of trouble, had been wholly forgotten. The contrast, in this respect, between the Declaration of Independ ence and this Constitution, is humiliating and painful. The appeal made to the King of kings in the former, followed by ten thousand fervent supplications from an afflicted struggling people, was not unavailing. But we look in vain in this great Charter, in which that Declaration found its happy consummation, for a counterpart to that appeal. How shall this painful incongruity be reconciled! That the defect of the Constitution in this respect, was deeply felt and deplored, at the time of its adoption, is well known. It was however not so easy to reme⚫ dy the evil as to feel it. Numerous as were the sincere friends of religion, in the Convention of '87, and heartily as they may have desired that at least some general acknowledgement of the great principles of christianity should be made, it would have been hazardous to all the interests at stake, to attempt the introduction of the subject under the circumstances then existing. For there were a few members, headed by Jefferson, who would have opposed the attempt to the last. It was not by accident that he had omitted all 'reference to religion in a positive way, in the first draft of the instrument; and it would not have been easy to gain his consent or that of his friends, to its introduction afterwards. This therefore may be classed among those things in the Constitution of which the immortal Washington says: "I readily acknowledge they never did, and I am persuaded never will, obtain my cordial approbation; but I did then conceive, and do now most firmly believe, that in the aggregate, it is the best constitution that can be obtained at this epoch, and

that this, or a dissolution, awaits our choice, and is the only alternative."

Whilst however candor requires us to make these concessions, justice demands that this peculiarity of the National Constitution should not be forced in as evidence of what it by no means proves. For the fact dare not be overlooked, that it was in no sense the province of the National Constitution or Government to make provision for the moral and religious wants of the citizens of the Republic. This duty belonged to the Legislatures of the several States. Neither would these have been disposed to allow of such an apparent interference with their Sovereign Authority, even in favor of religion, lest advantage might be taken of the precedent to do so in other matters.

Besides this, the Constitution is to be considered as rather assuming the truth of the christian religion, than legislating against it. This had been openly and avowedly the religion of the Colonies. It was universally known to be that of all the Representatives, with but a very few exceptions. The laws of the nation, as administered at the time of its adoption, were uniformly administered upon this assumption. It was countenanced, and approved, in a most decided form, in the daily devotions with which the Congress was opened. So that all that was deemed necessary, was a guaranty to the States from the General Government, that no sectarian or denominational tenets, or form of religion, should ever be made a test of qualification for office, or be fastened upon the Republic as a National Religion. The States were individually to be left at full liberty, in this respect to exercise their elective rights. Not however at liberty to elect at pleasure a Turk or a Pagan. For it was as confidently presumed that such an exercise of their liberty would not be attempted, as that it was taken for granted that no State would send an idiot or a madman to represent her in the National Legislature. But as the moral and general religious character of the States were known, sufficient confidence was felt in the good sense, and moral integrity of the citizens of the States, to silence all fears, that any choice repugnant to the prevailing sympathies and convictions of the nation, would be carefully and conscientiously avoided. And past experience has proven, this confidence not to have been misplaced. Whatever at times may have been the warmth of party feeling, and the bitterness of sectarian prejudice, the religious principles of the great majority of our National Legislators, have altogether been as decidedly christian, as those of the members of the English Parliament, notwithstanding the influence of their ecclesiastical establish

ment.

The view now taken of the true position of the National Constitution is by no means new. It is taught and ably advocated by the most distinguished Jurists and Statesmen of our land. A single quotation from the Commentary of Chief Justice Story will show that it has his full sanction. In his comment upon the amendments Art. I. he says: "The right of a Society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, relig. ion and morality are intimately connected with the well-being of the State, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion; the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishment; the cultivation of all the personal, social and benevolent virtues;-these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt that it is the especial duty of Government to foster and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgement in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's own conscience."

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as it is not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship."

"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahommedanism or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."

It is however mainly to the State constitutions and laws that we must look for the most direct evidence in this case. Το those belong properly the duty and right of making such provision for the religious and moral wants of society as may be thought expedient. The definite and decided tone of the majority of these, now, will be found to compensate very amply, for the apparent deficiency of the national constitution. In all the