Year: 1861

of the United States is Christian Govern
ment, is being delivered at the present tim
by the Rev. Mr.. Briefly at the Baptis
Church. The first lecture of the serie
was spoken near two weeks ago; the sec
end on last Sabbath evening.


The second discourse was devoted t,
prove the Constitution of the United States
not infidelic, but Christian in its character
The learned and able divine, in support o
his position, quoted the first amendment t.
the constitutions Congress shall make NJ
law respecting the establishment of reli
gion, or prohibiting the free exercise there
| of'-and Story's commentaries thereon
We understood the lecturer to RELY sub
stantially upon, first, the language of thu
American constitution itself; second, OF
the Christian bias of its founders and tht
religious tendencies of the people of the
time; third, on the recognition of the value
of religious services in Congress, by the
early Congresses and Conventions and
fourth, on the fact that by vote of Con-
grcss in 1882 twenty thousand bibles were
imported for distribution from Holland and
! Scotland.


In reference to the language o: the
American Constitution we apprehend the
reverend lecturer has relied too strongly
upon irrelevant testimony. The language,
if we are not mistaken, merely declares
there shall be an unrestricted liberty of
conscience in the United States 1t is so
understood, at least by the statesmen of the
present day. The Mormon question is one
of the ugliest problems we have to solve.
1t is conceded that the General Govern
ment can interfere with Mormonism in no
way as religion. That matter is left to
right itself by free discussion or local law.
We might quote from eminent authorities
to show that the American government
stands perfectly neutral in matters of reli-
gion, but this we defer to another time
The language of the Constitution unsup-
ported by other testimony does not go to
prove that the Government intends to pro-
tect the Christian religion more than any
other. If the religious bias of its foun
ders is to be taken to explain its intent we
might produce the fact that the only clause
in the instrument touching on religion at
all was proposed by New Hampshire the
most intolerent of all the states at the time
State that did not recognize the mem
bers of one Christian sect as worthy to hold
any Office of trust or honor. 1t IS possible
and quite probable that the trainers of the
Constitution, protesting various faiths, and
some of them no faith at all, might have
intended to ignore religious matters in toto
in the organic law of the nation. The fact
that chaplains were invited to officiate in
the early congresses is not positive proof of
the tendencies of the Government towards
the Christian religion. A great many skep-
tics believe religious services necessary in
the present state of society and counte-
nance them in public as political sanitary





Presbyterianism in Scotland, Episcopacy
in England, and Catholicism in Ireland
though Calvinist himself. 1t is probable
that the founders of the American Govern
ment patterned after the example of Mary
land and gave equal tolcrat;on to every
species of belief in matters of religion.


The fact that the Congress of 1872 i'm
ported twenty thousand bibles, in our opn-
ion, has no bearing upon the question the
lecturer discussed. What the Congress of
'82 did is of no import. The present Gov
ernment was not formed till seven years
after bibles were sought to be imported.
We cannot see if a Congress under the pres
ent government had made an appropriation
for bibles, how the fact could be construed
into recognition of the Christian religion
before any other. Congress has at various
times made appropriations for unconstitu-
tional purposes. Money has been devoted
to the purpose of making exchanges of
books, without reference to their character
Because money has been spent for bibles it
does not follow that the government indor-
ses infidelity by receiving the works of Vol
taire or Volney from Mons. Vattemare.
We may, also, be permitted to say, that if
the action of Congress is to be taken as
authority to determine the religious char
acter of the Government, we might cite the
instance of the 36th Congress, in inviting
the Rev. DR.. Raphael to Officiate as Chap
lain, as committing the Government to Ju-
daism, whereas it only proves that in the
opinion of our Senators there should be no
discrimination in favor of any particular
sect or religion.


If we understood the reverened lecturer
his ideas were not quite clear to our mind,
on the point-the right of freedom in mat
ters of conscience is permitted by our Gov
ernment, but when the exercise of any 9TH
er than the Christian religion reaches a GER
tain point, the common law steps in by
some unaccountable means, and says ''thus
far shalt thou go and no farther" The
reverend gentleman is perhaps not aware
or had forgotten, that no common law but
that of nations is recognized by the Su-
preme Court of the United States The
common law has to be adopted by State
Legislatures before it is binding, and then