Year: 1873

Address of Dr.. A. A. Miner, before the


National Convention, on Wednesday


evening, February 2eth, 1873.


Rev. DR.. Miner spoke, for about fifty
minutes, substantially as follows:


If the men and women of this country
were asked, what of all the facts and prin-
ciples that enter into our national lite are
most important. ninety nine in hundred
would answers, the facts and principles
of Christianity. These, they would say,
were operative when the nation had birth,
and have ever since continued operative,
in various degrees of purity. Then they
regard Christianity as essentially our
fundamental law. At the same time they
are aware that what we technically call our
fundamental law, the Constitution of these
United States, is utterly silent in regard
not only to the authority of Christianity,
but to the very being of a God; and this
silence, they quite generally think, itwould
be impolitic, even hazardous, tn break.
They rely on Christianity to conserve the
nations interests, and promote its welfare,
but think it must be done quietly, not
overtly cannot but ask, how can it be
wise to do covertly what it woald be un-
wise, even hazardous, to do openly?


What is the origin and what the tenden-
| cy of this silence in regard to our essential
| law? 1t must not be forgotten that the
early colonies were deeply and strongly
religious. Some of them had even iden-
| titled citizenship and church membership
However jealous of their own rights of
conscience, they had learned scarcely the
rudiments of toleratiOn as a principle, and
did not hesitate to inflict various disabilities
rising sometimes to gravest persecution,
upon those who could not see with their
eyes and hear with their ears.


From such causes there arose an exceed.
ing jealousy of civil interference In mat
tiers of religion. Those who had been
trained under persecution at home
strengthened by accessions of mer
repelled by church and state tyranny
abroad, constituted host justly opposed
to any union of church and state under the
new polity. Divisions of the church had
become more numerous. and it was prop.
erly felt that there must be no preference
given to one church over another in the
national charter How to secure the equa
rights of all, otherwise than by utter si
lence in regard to Christianity itself, they
did not discover. And so error was
shielded and the chasm bridged.


That French Atheism and English
Deism had eXertcd their baleful influence
on American thought, there can be no doubt
The number of free-thinkers in the couu.
try was absolutely great, though it was
relatively small and an undue proportion
of such men were embraced in the national
councils. What covert influence their
personal rejection of Christianity had in
determining the method of securing equal
rights, it is perhaps impossible to say
but that the silence determined upon did
not mean the rejection of Christianity
but did mean rather the perfect federation
of the various sects, seems quite clear
Had it been understood that the former
was the meaning, there would have been
such an outcry throughout the length and
breadth Of the land as would have pre-
vented the ratification of the Constitution
by the people.


Nor, in case the silence of the Constitu
ton had meant a rejection of Christianity
would there have arisen at once, those
Chris tian Observances and usages, the ap
pointment of chaplsips and of days oil
thanksgiving, and the like. which have
continued to our own time.


But those who esteemed Christianity as
above all prices, and who yet favored 81
lence in the interests of federation, doubt
| lCoS ICdSOUOu III IItlS WISE. nc RTtdl
body of the people are Christian What
the people are their government will sub
stantially be. If they are Christian
Christianity will utter itself in the State
Constitutions; it will modify criminal
law; it will temper by higher and
broader justice the whole body of laws
We need not, therefore, be anxious about
any recognition of Christianity in the
Constitution ITSELF" This surely is plausi.
BILE; but is it sounds If the Christianity
OF the people naturally embodies itself in
state Constitutions, would 1t not just as
naturally in the absence Of any especial
stress to the contrary, embody itself in the
United States Constitution. And iif any
special stress prevented the recognition OF
its obligation in the one case. why would
not similar stress prevent it in the 9th.
err Besides, would not silence on this
subject in the United States Constitution
tend to produce like silence in every
other department of the governments II
its mention is unimportant here, can it be
otherwise than unimportant anywhere
Important or unimportant, the example oI
the national Congress may be expected to
! be potent throughout every subordinate