The Nevada journal., 1861-02-15
For the Nevada Journal.

inst. ma crttiqHe upon my lecture of tn
preceding Sabbath evening. / am not accus
toned to reply to any criticisms upon my dis
courses from the pulpit. Kindly, but fully ant
fearlessly uttering in the desk, whatever, in nv
munity may require, l cheerfully accord to 9th
ers the right to canvass my teachings. The
same amendment to the Constitution which pro
tccts my pulpit protects your press. I have nj
complaint to make, therefore, that you have
used your pre- SIS in a review of my DISCOURSE
Nor can object to the temper in which you
article was written. Its spirit and languag,
ware kind and courteous.
Having thus admitted your right to review
my discourse-and the fair and courteous man.
ner in which you have done it-permit me
through your paper, to say few words to youl
readers in reply. ask this only on account oi
the Importance of the subject. did not expect
| that all who heard me would endorse my views
and if the subject was less important than it is
l would not have thought for moment of no.
ticing any dissent from them.
At the close of the second paragraph, you
represent me as saying, "by vote of Con-
gress in 1882, twenty thousand copies of the
Bible were imported for distribution, etc." This
is error, what did say this, " As early
as Sept 11th, 1777 Congress, by special vote,
ordered twenty thousand copies of the Bible
imported from Holland, Scotland and elsewhere. F"
'' In 1882, in consequence of the difficulty of eff
fecting this importation, Congress, by another
vote, recommended the edition published by
Robert Aiken, of Philadelphia" If 1 had blum
torical fact, your paragraph supposes, the
fault would have been objectionable.
For the sake of brevity will quote the points
made in your article, and follow with my replies
in accompanying paragraphs.
In reference to the language of the Ameri-
can Constitution we apprehcnd the Reverend
Lecturer has relied too strongly ON irrelevant
testimony" 'Irrelevant" i. c. not applicable"
not serving to support" In my argument I
reasoned from the universally admitted signif-
cation of the phrase-an establishment of reG-
gion-the design of the amendment, as under
stood, and stated repeatedly during debate, by
the men who passed 1.-THE public feeling in the
States which demanded the amcndment-the
fact that in the State Constitutions Christianity
had been recognized, and, the opinion of Judge
Story, that the general if not the universal feel
ing, was such in the States, at the time the
amendment was adopted that any attempt to
ignore Christianity, or place it on a level with
other religions, would have created universal
if not universal indignation"
In the sense of applicable, l am disposed to
think that every intelligent reader of the jour
NAL will say with me- that these points are rele-
want, and if they do not serve to support my
position, I would like to know what kind of ar
gument would support it, or any other one.
"The language (of the amendment) " if we
shall be unrestricted liberty of conscience in the
United States" If the idea here is Congress
shall make no law to compel men to profess
Christianity, or Buddhism, or any other religion,
the Amendment was uncalled for, neither did
the states demand it for any such purpose
While the Amendment was under discussion,
Mr.. Madison said Z" He believed the people fear
ed that one sect might obtain a prominence, or
two might unite and establish religion to
which they might compel others to conform"
1t was the rivalry and ambition of the christian
sects that alarmed the people, and, fearing that
Congress had the power, under one Of the gene
raj provisions of the Constitution, to raise one
of these sects into n national establishment
like Episcopacy in England, or Presbyterianisn
in Scotland, they wished the Constitution so
amended as to secure the free exercise of the
rites of the christian religion, but, in the Ian
guagc of one Of the speakers, " not to patronizc
those who professed no religion at ALL" In al
most every state of the Union, desire for pre-
eminence and state patronage had shown itself
among the sects. The scenes which had been
enacted in Europe, taught our fathers the evil
and the prosecutions which Baptists, Quakers
and some others had suffered in the Colonies
for conscience sake, opened their eyes to the
danger of allowing Congress to logalize such
an order Of things in this country.
1t never yet has been shown, that it was in
tended to declare by the amendment, that men
might entertain any opinion, or no opinion upon
religious matters just as they pleased, that men
have this right, to such an extent that govern
ment may not moddle with their religious opin-
ons, or their opinions about religion, which is
q different thing, I admit, but, it was no part
of the design of the amendment to assert this.
The right comes from another source.
"The language of the Constitution, unsup
ported by other testimony, does not go to prove
that the government intend to protect the chris
tian religion more than any other" True, but I
adduced other testimony. In my first lecture
I had shown, from the character of the 1aen
who formed the Constitution, and from their re-
corded opinions, that they would not have form
ed a government which ignored Christianity,
or placed it on level with other religions, also
that at fhe time the amendment was adopted"
the general, if not the unirer8al feeling in the
states was that Christianity ought to be recog-
nized aud encouraged, and further, that it had
been recognized in every state Constitution,
and, that, as shown by numerous acts, the gem
eral government did, from the first, recognize it
as true, and faith to be encouraged and fos-
tered.
If the religious bias of its founders is to
be taken to explain its intent, we might pro-
duce the fact. that the only clause in the in