The Nevada journal., 1861-02-22
IS THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT A
CHRISTIAN GOVERNMENT


pastor of the Baptist Church Of this city
on the above question:. Hearing him ad
vance opinions in lecture from the pulpi
in support of the affirmative of the propo
sition, which IN our Judgment were no
we'll founded, we took the liberty Of dis
senting, not for the purpose of bringing
on an argument with the reverend gentle
man. for that were perhaps presumption
On cur part, but to correct what W,
thought to be an error into which frient
had fallen. Our remarks brought out thu
eloquent lecturer in a reply published il
our last issue.
1t is not our intention, in this article a
least, to rejoin to the reply published ir
our last. It would require too much time
and space. But We design striking home
on the main issue, leaving minor points te
be settled hereafter.
Mr.. Briefly teaches his flock that tn;
Christian rel g,on is shown preference and
is protected by the American Constitution
We dissent, and thus a friendly antago-
nism Of opinion is produced. We emphat-
icallv assert, and shall proceed TO pro-
duce the proofs, that the Constitution
of the United States is wholly relieved
from any connection with religion, wheth-
er Christian or any other We take the
ground that so far as the Constitution is
concerned, far from indicating a prefer
ence for one religion over another, it ex-
pressly places ell on nm equal footing by
abolishing all religious tests, and prohib-
itng Congress from passing any law ifn-
pairing the free escycise Of religion. The
whole matter, We say, is left to State gov
ernments. Now, we want no confusion of
ideas as to the point at issue between Mr..
Briefiy and ourselves. We do not dispute
the powers of State governments with him.
Our dealings are with the General Govern
ment, and that alone.
No fact is better established tftan tha
the General Government is one Of limited
powers. AS far as it goes It is sovereign
and supreme. All powers, however, not
not delegated to it in the Constitution, arc
by the express terms of that instrument re-
served to the States respectively and to the
people. Authority in matters of religion,
we assert, is not among the delegated pow
crs and consequently is left to the exercise
of the States. For proof of our position
we shall refer to the letter of the Consti-
tuition itself and to the commentaries of
learned jurists and eminent men upon it.
1t is a principle in law that judges
should be governed by the text of the law
they administer and expound. Acting on
.his principle we shall proceed TO examine
the language of the Constitution. We find
there are but two clauses in that instru-
ment touching religion even in the most
remote degree. One declares that "no re-
ligious test shall ever be required as a quail
iGcation to any Office or public trust in the
United States" and the other is the amend
ment declaring that " Congress shall make
no law respecting the establishment. Of re-
ligion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof"
There is nothing in the letter of the Con-
stitution indicating a preference for the
Christian religion. Indeed, there is no dis
pute on this point, for Mr.. Briefly admits
that the Constitution unsupported by other
testimony does not prove the position he
assumes. The language of the clauses we
quote seems to be quite in support Of the
opposite view, The Christian religion is
not mention at ali. As far as the clause
about religious tests is concerned the prin-
ciple is clearly recognized, that all religions
are equal in the sight of the government.
As our opponent has seen fit to quote Chief
Justice Story in support of his position,
farther along in the same work-lines which
contain the pith that the gentleman failed
to notice. We apprehend what we are
about to produce from Story on the Consti-
tuition ought to be conclusive, as to the
matter at issue. Judge Story says:
1t was under solemn consciousness of the
dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry
of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects,
this etemplifcd in our domestic, as well as our
foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to
erclude from the national gorernment all po,cer to
act upon the subject"
Farther along he continues in the same
strain.
Thus the cIole po,cer orer the subject of reli-
gion Is LEFT EXCLUSIVELY TO THE STATE GOV
ERNNENrs, and the Catholic, and the Protestant.
the Calvinist and the Armirian; the Jew and
the Infdel, may sit down at the common table
of the national councils, without any inquisition
into their faith or mode of worship"
The language of the learned commentator
we quote shows conclusively that he under
stood the attitude of the General Govern
ment to be that of absolute neutrality tow
ards religion. More authority is a. hand
Mr.. Jefferson, in his letter to Rev Mr.. Millar.
of Jan. %, 1908, gave as reason for not
appointing days of fasting and prayer, that
h. considered "the Government Of the
United States 'interdicted by the Constitu=
tion from intermeddlng with religion"
Hildreth, in his History of the United
States, giving an account of the proposed
amendments to the Constitution, says twas
Joap,ad pocaeeorr 1.