The Nevada journal., 1861-02-22

officiating priest have been invited TO open o
session of Congress with prayer, to his hesthen
God? Certainly not. From tho first, the prayers
in Congress have bern addressed to the God of
the Bible, and moi TO the Gods Of any Pagan
creed, or sect.
No A. 1 will not notice now. as am led, from
your first article, to expect fuller statement Of
your views of the "common law
No. 5. Ny position is this. The early settlers
brought the common law with them, as English
citizens, and, after such notifications of it as
were necessary to adapt il TO their circumstan-
ees they claimed It as ene of their unalienable
rights, and urged the rights it guaranteed to
them against the exactions and eneroachments
of Great Britain. Now, inasmuch as Episco-
pacy was not the established religion of the
colonies, nor ever intended TO be, the common
law gave 1t no advantage ever other Christian
denominations. 1t recognized Christianity Tor
rather Christianity formed part Of the law in
England, Scotland and wales--and, it formed
part of said law in the colonies. 1t was the
ecciesiastical and not the common law that made
Episcopaey the national religion Of England
and Presbyterianism the national religion of
Scotland. The common law made Christianity
the accepted faith of both therefore, in bring
ing the common law with them, and leaving the
ecclesiastical law behind them the colonies es-
tsbishcd Christianity in the colonies, but did not
establish any one of its sects as national.
No. 6. 1t formed no part Of my design to
prove that, under our government, the Chinese
worships, OF Mohamcdan could be suppressed by
law. My design was to prove that our govern
ment committed to Christianity from the
first, as it was not committed to any other creed
or faith. That Christianity had recognized
foothold, which neither infdeTity, Paganism nor
Mohamedanism had. Our government may toll
crate these things, to = certain extent, but, it
does not tolerate Christianity. This is here by
a right, older and more sacred than the govern
ment itself. Thus Christianity has given us n
Sabbath. and, law protecting it would not vio-
late single fundamental principle of our gov
ernment-while, law abolishing it, would
Christianity has given a standard of morals,
and any practices, growing out of any other
laltH, WHICH 10 luls staHudTu, can
be ConstitutionaUy suppressed. Mohamedanism
cannot bring its haram. Buddhism its infantcidc
and Sattceism, or Thughsm its religious stran-
glings into our midst, though these arc parts of
their religion.
No. Z. AS this grants all that I have con-
tended for I have nothing to say in reply. As
the acknowledged standard of morals is the
religious book of the Christian the fefore whether
any practice is contrary to good morals or not, |
can be determined only by an appeal to this
standard. We do not go to- our Statute books |
nor to the Koran, Fedars, Shastcrs or the writ |
ings of Paine, the original standard of NOR
ais. In the language of an able expounder of |
the law, / do not know what constitutes good |
morals, if I may not appeal to the Bible, As
local laws must be in accordance with the Con
stituiion of the State, and of the United States.
then n law for the protection of Christianity, to
the full extent for which have cuntcnded. is in
accordance with the spirit of tie Constitution,
by yoH admission.
Thanking You for the space allowed me in your
paper, close my reply 20 your first article.
Yours, Truly. i. BRIEFLY.