TOPICS - click to expand or collapse

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION - HAMILTON'S VIEW OF THE NECESSITY OF A STRONG GOVERNMENT - HIS RESOLUTION IN CONGRESS TO CALL A CONVENTION - RECOMMENDATION OF VIRGINIA - CONVENTION CALLED - CHARACTER OF ITS MEMBERS - NO RECOGNITION OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION - HAMILTON'S REASON FOR THE OMISSION - WASHINGTON'S REASON - THE CONSTITUTION A CHRISTIAN STATE PAPER - FRANKLIN'S CHRISTIAN ADDRESS TO THE CONVENTION - HIS CLOSING SPEECH - THE INFLUENCE OF FRANKLIN'S SPEECH DESCRIBED BY A FRIEND OF A MEMBER OF THE CONVENTION - WASHINGTON'S DELIGHT - ITS EFFECT ON THE RESULTS OF THE CONVENTION - FRANKLIN DECLARES THE CONSTITUTION FORMED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF GOD - WASHINGTON'S VIEWS - HIS ADDRESS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO THE PEOPLE OF PHILADELPHIA - VIEWS OF DR. ADAMS - JUDGE STORY ON THE RELIGIOUS FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION - JUDGE BAYARD'S VIEWS - SPEECH IN THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS - HARMONY OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH THE PRINCIPLES AND INSTITUTES OF CHRISTIANITY - SENATOR FRELINGHUYSEN ON THE SABBATH - THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - PICTURE OF PROSPERITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION - THE VIRTUE OF THE PEOPLE TO PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION - PRAYER OFFERED FOR THE CONVENTION AND THE CONSTITUTION.

"By a Constitution," says Rawle, " we mean the principles on which the government is formed and conducted.

"On the voluntary association of men in sufficient numbers to form a political community, the first step to be taken for their own security and happiness is to agree on the terms on which they are to be united and to act. They form a Constitution, or plan of government, suited to their character, their exigencies, and their future prospects. They agree that it shall be the supreme rule of obligation among them. This is the pure and genuine source of a Constitution in the republican form.

"Vattel justly observes that the perfection of a state and its aptitude to fulfil the ends proposed by society depend on its Constitution. The first duty to itself is to form the best Constitution possible, and one most suited to its circumstances, and thus it lays the foundation of its safety, permanency, and happiness.

"The history of man does not present a more illustrious monument of human invention, sound political principles, and judicious combinations, than the Constitution of the United States. It is deemed to approach as near to perfection as any that have ever been formed."

The framers of the Constitution of the United States profoundly felt the magnitude and solemnity of their work. The Revolution had been won, with all its splendid results and animating hopes. The Articles of the old Confederation had proven too weak for the ends of a strong government, and fears pervaded the minds of public men and the people that the objects for which they had labored would be lost. Under these circumstances, "it is the duty," said Hamilton, "of all those who have the welfare of the community at heart, to unite their efforts to direct the attention of the people to the true source of the public disorders, the want of an EFFICIENT GENERAL GOVERNMENT, and to impress upon them this conviction, that these States, to be happy, must have a stronger bond of UNION, and a CONFEDERATION capable of drawing forth the resources of the country." Accordingly, on the 30th of June, 1783, Congress passed a series of resolutions setting forth the defects of the old Confederate Government, and concluded with the following: -

Whereas, it is essential to the happiness and security of these States that their union should be established on the most solid foundations; and it is manifest that this desirable object cannot be effected but by a government capable, both in peace and war, of making every member of the Union contribute in just proportion to the common necessities, and of combining and directing the forces and wills of the several parts to a general end; to which purposes, in the opinion of Congress, the present Confederation is altogether inadequate;

And Whereas, on the spirit which may direct the councils and measures of these States, at the present juncture, may depend their future safety and welfare; Congress conceive it to be their duty freely to state to their constituents the defects which, by experience, have been discovered in the present plan of the Federal Union, and solemnly to call their attention to a revisal and amendment of the same; 

Therefore, Resolved, That it be earnestly recommended to the several States to appoint a convention to meet at on the  day of -, with full powers to revise the Confederation, and to adjust and propose such alterations as to them may appear necessary, to be finally approved or rejected by the States respectively, and that a committee of be appointed to prepare an address upon the subject.

The foregoing action of Congress was based on the recommendation of the Legislature of Virginia, who "proposed a convention of commissioners from all the States, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of trade, and the propriety of a uniform system of commercial relations, for their permanent harmony and common interest. Pursuant to this proposal, commissioners were appointed by five States, who met at Annapolis in September, 1786. They framed a report to be laid before the Continental Congress, advising the latter to call a general convention of commissioners from all the States, to meet in Philadelphia in May, 1787, for a more effectual revision of the Articles of Confederation. Congress adopted the recommendation of the report, and in February, 1787, passed a resolution for the assembling a convention accordingly."

Virginia, in an act of her Assembly appointing her delegates and urging the other States to meet in general convention, says, -

The crisis has arrived at which the good people of America are to decide the solemn question whether they will, by wise and magnanimous efforts, reap the just fruits which they have so gloriously acquired, and of that Union which they have cemented with so much of their common blood, or whether, by giving way to unmanly jealousies and prejudices, or to partial and transitory interests, they will renounce the auspicious blessings prepared for them by the Revolution, and furnish to its enemies an eventual triumph over those by whose virtue and valor it has been accomplished.

The convention accordingly met in Philadelphia, on May 14, 1787, and, after four months of solemn deliberation, the Federal Constitution was formed, and sent to the States and the people for ratification. After very thorough discussion before the people, it was adopted, and went into practical operation.

"It was a most fortunate thing for America," says Curtis, in his "History of the Constitution," "that the Revolutionary age, with its hardships, its trials, and its mistakes, had formed a body of statesmen capable of framing for it a durable Constitution. The leading persons in the convention which formed the Constitution had been actors, in civil or military life, in the scenes of the Revolution. In these scenes their characters as American statesmen had been formed. When the condition of the country had fully revealed the incapacity of the government to provide for its wants, these men were naturally looked to to construct a system to save it from anarchy; and their great capacities, their high disinterested purposes, their freedom from all fanaticism and illiberality, and their earnest, unconquerable faith in the destiny of the country, enabled them to found that government which now up- holds and protects the whole fabric of liberties in the States of this Union."

"Of this convention," says a writer, "considering the character of the men, the work in which they were engaged, and the results of their labor, I think them the most remarkable body ever assembled."

This Constitution, formed by such a body of able and wise statesmen, contains no recognition of the Christian religion, nor even an acknowledgment of the providence of God in national affairs. This omission was greatly regretted by the Christian public at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, as it has been by the Christian sentiment of the nation ever since.

It is said that, after the convention had adjourned, Rev. Dr. Miller, a distinguished professor in Princeton College, met Alexander Hamilton in the streets of Philadelphia, and said, "Mr. Hamilton, we are greatly grieved that the Constitution has no recognition of God or the Christian religion." "I declare," said Hamilton, "we forgot it!"

The attention of Washington was called to this omission. After he was inaugurated, in 1789, as the first President under the Constitution, the Presbytery Eastward, in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, sent a Christian address to Washington, in which they say, "We should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgment of the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent, inserted somewhere in the Magna Charta of our country."

To this Washington replies, "I am persuaded you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna Charta of our country. To the guidance of the ministers of the gospel this important object is, perhaps, more properly committed. And in the progress of morality and science, to which our Government will give every furtherance, we may confidently expect the advancement of true religion and the completion of our happiness."

Notwithstanding this omission, the record of facts now to pass before the reader will demonstrate that the Constitution was formed under Christian influences and is, in its purposes and spirit, a Christian instrument.

The Christian faith and character of the men who formed the Constitution forbid the idea that they designed not to place the Constitution and its government under the providence and protection of God and the principles of the Christian religion. In all their previous state papers they had declared Christianity to be fundamental to the well-being of society and government, and in every form of official authority had stated this fact. The Declaration of Independence contained a solemn "appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world," and expressed "a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." An article in the old Confederation had declared that "it had pleased the great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislatures we severally represent in Congress to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify, the said articles of confederation and perpetual union." The various States who had sent these good and great men to the convention to form a Constitution had, in all their civil charters, expressed, as States and as a people, their faith in God and the Christian religion. Most of the statesmen themselves were Christian men; and the convention had for its president George Washington, who everywhere paid a public homage to the Christian religion.

These statesmen, met to form a Constitution for a free and growing republic, were at times baffled in reaching desirable and harmonious results.

"I can well recollect," says Judge Wilson, a member, "though I cannot, I believe, convey to others, the impression which on many occasions was made by the difficulties which surrounded and pressed the convention. The great undertaking, at some times, seemed to be at a stand; at other times, its motions seemed to be retrograde. At the conclusion, however, of our work, the members expressed their astonishment at the success with which it terminated."

It was in the midst of these difficulties that Dr. Franklin, on the morning of the 28th of June, 1787, rose, and delivered the following address: -

Mr. President: - The slow progress we have made, after four or five weeks' close attendance and continual reasoning with each other, our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many nays as yeas, - is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need his assistance?

I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little, partial, local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate circumstance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

Madison says that

"Mr. Sherman seconded the motion.

"Mr. Hamilton and several others expressed their apprehensions that, however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, in the first place, bring on it some disagreeable animadversions, and, in the second, lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the convention had suggested this measure.

"It was answered by Dr. Franklin, Mr. Sherman, and others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission; that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it; and that the alarm out of doors, that might be excited for the state of things within, would at least be as likely to do good as ill.

"Mr. Williamson observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The convention had no funds.

"Mr. Randolph proposed, in order to give a favorable aspect to the measure, that a sermon be preached, at the request of the convention, on the Fourth of July, the anniversary of Independence, and thenceforward prayers, &c. to be read in the convention every morning."

The following authentic account of the scene connected with Dr. Franklin's speech in reference to the need of Divine aid in forming the Constitution was written in 1825 by an intimate friend of the youngest member of the convention, and may be found in McGuire's "Religious Opinions and Character of Washington." It relates to the reconsideration of the provision which had been made for the representation of the States in the Senate. It had been determined that representation should be according to population. To this principle the representatives from the four smaller States objected. They moved a reconsideration, and expressed their purpose of withdrawing from the convention unless the Constitution was so modified as to give them an equal representation.

"A rupture," says the writer, "appeared almost inevitable, and the bosom of Washington seemed to labor with the most anxious solicitude for its issue. Happily for the United States, the convention contained many individuals possessed of talents and virtues of the highest order, whose hearts were deeply interested in the establishment of a new and efficient form of government, and whose penetrating minds had already deplored the evils which would spring up in our newly-established republic should the present attempt to consolidate it prove abortive. Among those personages the most prominent was Dr. Franklin. He was esteemed the Mentor of our body. To a mind naturally strong and capacious, enriched by much reading and the experience of many years, he added a manner of communicating his thoughts peculiarly his own, in which simplicity, beauty, and strength were equally conspicuous. As soon as the angry orators who had preceded him had left him an opening, the doctor rose, impressed with the weight of the subject before them, and the difficulty of managing it successfully.

"In a speech, the doctor urged the consideration of the great interests involved in the issue of their deliberations, and proposed a recess for three days, for cool reflection and impartial conversation among the members respecting their conflicting views and opinions, that they might return to the subject before them with more tranquil and amicable feelings. He then concluded in the following words: -

" 'Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, the propriety of nominating and appointing, before we separate, a chaplain to this convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by an address to the Creator of the universe and the Governor of all nations, beseeching him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success.'

"The doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington, at the close of this address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman Senate. A silent admiration superseded for a moment the expression of that assent and approbation which was strongly marked on almost every countenance. The motion for appointing a chaplain was instantly put, and carried, with a solitary negative. The motion for an adjournment was then put, and carried unanimously; and the convention adjourned accordingly.

"The three days of recess were spent in the manner advised by Dr. Franklin: the opposite parties mixed with each other, and a free and frank interchange of sentiments took place. On the fourth day we assembled again; and, if great additional light had not been thrown on the subject, every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated which promised at least a calm and dispassionate reconsideration of the subject.

"As soon as the chaplain had closed his prayer, and the minutes of the last sitting were read, all eyes were turned to the doctor. He rose, and said, in a few words, that during the recess he had listened attentively to all the arguments, pro and con, which had been urged by both sides of the House; that he had himself read much, and thought more, on the subject; he saw difficulties and objections which might be urged by individual States against every scheme which had been proposed, and he now more than ever was convinced that the Constitution which they were about to form, in order to be just and equal, must be founded on the basis of compromise and mutual concession. With such views and feelings, he would move a reconsideration of the vote last taken on the organization of the Senate. The motion was seconded, the vote carried, the former vote rescinded, and, by a successful motion and resolution, the Senate was organized on the present plan."

During the deliberations of the convention to form the Constitution, the 4th of July, 1787, was celebrated in Philadelphia with great enthusiasm. The oration was delivered in the Reformed Calvinistic Church, and Rev. William Rogers offered up a prayer, of which the following is an extract: -

"As this is a period, O Lord, big with events impenetrable by any human scrutiny, we fervently recommend to thy fatherly notice that august body, assembled in this city, who compose our federal convention. Will it please thee, O thou Eternal I Am! to favor them, from day to day, with thy inspiring presence; be their wisdom and strength; enable them to devise such measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and prove the good of the great whole; incline the hearts of all the people to receive with pleasure, combined with a determination to carry into execution, whatever these thy servants may wisely recommend; that the United States of America may form one example of a free and virtuous government, which shall be the result of human mutual deliberation, and which shall not, like other governments, whether ancient or modern, spring out of mere chance or be established by force. May we trust in the cheering prospect of being a country delivered from anarchy, and continue, under the influence of republican virtue, to partake of all the blessings of cultivated and Christian society."

In Dr. Franklin's closing speech in the convention, he said, -

"It astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded, like those of the builders of Babel."

After the convention had closed its labors, and the Constitution had been adopted, Dr. Franklin acknowledged a divine intervention, as follows: -

"I am not to be understood to infer that our General Convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new Federal Constitution; yet I must own that I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of so much importance to the welfare of millions now in existence, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent and beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being."

This Constitution, freighted with such rich blessings, and tested by eighty-three years' trial, met at its formation with great opposition. Dr. Franklin wrote a paper comparing the conduct of the ancient Jews with that of the opponents of the Constitution of the United States, in which he says that "A zealous advocate for the proposed Federal Constitution, in a certain public assembly, said that the repugnance of a great part of mankind to good government was such, that he believed that if an angel from heaven was to bring down a Constitution from there for our use, it would nevertheless meet with violent opposition. He was reproved for the supposed extravagance of the sentiment.

"Probably," says Dr. Franklin, "it might not have immediately occurred to him that the experiment had been tried, and that the event was recorded in the most faithful of all histories, the Holy Bible; otherwise he might, as it seems to me, have supported his opinion by that unexceptionable authority.

"On the whole, it appears that the Israelites were a people jealous of their newly-acquired liberty, which jealousy was in itself no fault; but when they suffered it to be worked upon by artful men pretending public good, with nothing really in view but private interest, they were led to oppose the establishment of the new Constitution, whereby they brought upon themselves much inconvenience and misfortune. From all which we may gather that popular opposition to a public measure is no proof of its impropriety, even though the opposition be excited and headed by men of distinction."

"It appears to me," writes Washington to Lafayette, February 8, 1788, "little short of a miracle that the delegates from so many States, differing from each other, as you know, in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices, should unite in forming a system of national government so little liable to well-founded objections. It will at least be a recommendation to the proposed Constitution that it is provided with more checks and barriers against the introduction of tyranny, and those of a nature less liable to be surmounted, than any government hitherto instituted among mortals. We are not to expect perfection in this world; but mankind in modern times have apparently made some progress in the science of government."

"We may with a kind of pious and grateful exultation," writes Washington to Governor Trumbull, of Connecticut, July 20, 1788, "trace the finger of Providence through those dark and mysterious events which first induced the States to appoint a general convention, and then led them one after another, by such steps as were best calculated to effect the object, into an adoption of the system recommended by the general convention, thereby, in all human probability, laying a lasting foundation for tranquillity and happiness, when we had too much reason to fear that confusion and misery were coming upon us."

On his way to New York, after its adoption, to assume the administration of the new government, processions and ovations were frequent in honor of the adoption of the Constitution and as a tribute to the good and great man who had presided over the convention that formed it. At Philadelphia twenty thousand people met and welcomed Washington with cries of, "Long live George Washington! Long live the father of his country!" Washington, in addressing the people of that city, spoke as follows: -

"When I contemplate the interposition of Providence, as it has been visibly manifested in guiding us through the Revolution, in preparing us for the General Government, and in conciliating the good will of the people of America towards one another in its adoption, I feel myself oppressed and overwhelmed with a sense of the Divine munificence."

In that procession at Philadelphia, to honor the new Constitution, "the clergy formed a conspicuous part, manifesting by their attendance a sense of the connection between good government and religion. They marched arm in arm, to illustrate the General Union. Care was taken to associate ministers of the most dissimilar opinions with each other, to display the promotion of Christian charity by free institutions. 'The rabbi of the Jews, with a minister of the gospel on each side, was a most delightful sight.' It exhibited the political equality, not only of Christian denominations, but of worthy men of every belief."

"It has sometimes been concluded," says a writer, "that Christianity cannot have any direct connection with the Constitution of the United States, on the ground that the instrument contains no express declaration to that effect. But the error of such a conclusion becomes manifest when we reflect that the same is the case with regard to several other truths, which are, notwithstanding, fundamental in our constitutional system. The Declaration of Independence says that 'governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and that 'whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government.' These principles lie at the foundation of the Constitution of the United States. No principles in the Constitution are more fundamental than these. But the instrument contains no declaration to this effect; these principles are nowhere mentioned in it, and the references to them are equally slight and indirect with those which are made to the Christian religion. The same may be said of the great republican truth that political sovereignty resides in the people of the United States. If, then, any one may rightfully conclude that Christianity has no connection with the Constitution of the United States because this is nowhere expressly declared in the instrument, he ought, in reason, to be equally convinced that the same Constitution is not built upon and does not recognize the sovereignty of the people, and the great republican truths above quoted from the Declaration of Independence. This argument receives additional strength when we consider that the Constitution of the United States was formed directly for political and not for religious objects. The truth is, they are all equally fundamental, though neither of them is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.

"Besides, the Constitution of the United States contemplates, and is fitted for, such a state of society as Christianity alone can form. It contemplates a state of society in which strict integrity, simplicity, and purity of manners, wide diffusion of knowledge, well-disciplined passions, and wise moderation, are the general characteristics of the people. These virtues, in our nation, are the offspring of Christianity, and without the continued general belief of its doctrines and practice of its precepts they will gradually decline and eventually perish."

The Constitution declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

On this article Judge Story says, -

"The clause requiring no religious test for office is recommended by its tendency to satisfy the minds of many delicate and scrupulous persons, who entertain great repugnance to religious tests as a qualification for civil power or honor. But it has a higher aim in the Constitution. It is designed to cut off every pretence of an alliance between the Church and the State in the administration of the National Government. The American people were too well read in the history of other countries, and had suffered too much in their colonial state, not to dread the abuses of authority resulting from religious bigotry, intolerance, and persecution."

The first amendment to the Constitution is, "That Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"The same policy," says Judge Story, "which introduced into the Constitution the prohibition of any religious test, led to this more extended prohibition of the interference of Congress in religious concerns. We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution), but to a dread by the people of the influence of ecclesiastical power in matters of government, - a dread which their ancestors brought with them from the parent country, and which, unhappily for human infirmity, their own conduct, after their emigration, had not in any just degree tended to diminish. It was also obvious, from the numerous and powerful sects in the United States, that there would be perpetual temptations to struggles for ascendency in the national councils, if any one might thereby hope to found a permanent and exclusive national establishment of its own; and religious persecutions might thus be introduced, to an extent utterly subversive of the true interests and good order of the republic. The most effectual mode of suppressing the evil, in the view of the people, was to strike down the temptations to its introduction. How far any govern- ment has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a matter much discussed by writers upon public and political law.... The right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well-being of the state and indispensable to the administration of civil justice.

"The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being and attributes and providence of one Almighty God, the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability, a future state of rewards and punishments, the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues, these never can be a matter of indifference in a well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can exist without them. And, at all events, it is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity as a divine revelation to doubt that it is the special duty of Government to foster and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience.

"The real difficulty lies in ascertaining the limits to which Government may rightfully go in fostering and encouraging religion. Three cases may easily be supposed. One, where a government affords aid to a particular religion, leaving all persons free to adopt any other; another, where it creates an ecclesiastical establishment for the propagation of the doctrines of a particular sect of that religion, leaving a like freedom to all others; and a third, where it creates such an establishment, and excludes all persons not belonging to it, either wholly or in part, from any participation in the public honors, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities of the state. For instance, a government may simply declare that the Christian religion shall be the religion of the state, and shall be aided and encouraged in all the varieties of sects belonging to it; or it may declare that the Roman Catholic or Protestant religion shall be the religion of the state, leaving every man to the free enjoyment of his own religious opinions; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as of Episcopalians, as the religion of the state, with a like freedom; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect as exclusively the religion of the state, tolerating others to a limited extent, or excluding all not belonging to it from all public honors, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities.

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the Amendments to it, the general, if not universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

In a work on the Constitution, by James Bayard, of Delaware, and which received the warm commendations of Chief-Justice Marshall, Judge Story, Chancellor Kent, and other distinguished civilians and jurists, the writer speaks on this fundamental law of the Constitution thus: -

"The people of the United States were so fully aware of the evils which arise from the union of Church and State, and so thoroughly convinced of its corrupting influence upon both religion and government, that they introduced this prohibition into the fundamental law.

"It has been made an objection to the Constitution, by some, that it makes no mention of religion, contains no recognition of the existence and providence of God, - as though his authority were slighted or disregarded. But such is not the reason of the omission. The convention which framed the Constitution comprised some of the wisest and best men of the nation, - men who were firmly persuaded not only of the divine origin of the Christian religion, but also of its importance to the temporal and eternal welfare of men. The people, too, of this country were generally impressed with religious feelings, and felt and acknowledged the superintendence of God, who had protected them through the perils of war and blessed their exertions to obtain civil and religious freedom. But there were reasons why the introduction of religion into the Constitution would have been unseasonable, if not improper.

"In the first place, it was intended exclusively for civil purposes, and religion could not be regularly mentioned, because it made no part of the agreement between the parties. They were about to surrender a portion of their civil rights for the security of the remainder; but each retained his religious freedom, entire and untouched, as a matter between himself and his God, with which government could not interfere. But, even if this reason had not existed, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to use any expression on the subject which would have given general satisfaction. The difference between the various sects of Christians is such, that, while all have much in common, there are many points of variance: so that in an instrument where all are entitled to equal consideration it would be difficult to use terms in which all could cordially join.

"Besides, the whole Constitution was a compromise, and it was foreseen that it would meet with great opposition before it would be finally adopted. It was, therefore, important to restrict its provisions to things absolutely necessary, so as to give as little room as possible to cavil. Moreover, it was impossible to introduce into it even an expression of gratitude to the Almighty for the formation of the present government; for, when the Constitution was framed and submitted to the people, it was entirely uncertain whether it would ever be ratified, and the government might, therefore, never be established.

"The prohibition of any religious test for office was wise, because its admission would lead to hypocrisy and corruption. The purity of religion is best preserved by keeping it separate from government; and the surest means of giving to it its proper influence in society is the dissemination of correct principles through education. The experience of this country has proved that religion may flourish in all its vigor and purity without the aid of a national establishment; and the religious feeling of the community is the best guarantee for the religious administration of the government."

"Just and liberal sentiments on this subject," says Rawle, in his "View of the Constitution of the United States," "throw a lustre round the Constitution in which they are found, and, while they dignify the nation, promote its internal peace and harmony. No predominant religion overpowers another, the votaries of which are few and humble; no lordly hierarchy excites odium or terror; legal persecution is unknown; and freedom of discussion, while it tends to promote the knowledge, contributes to increase the fervor, of piety."

The following extracts from a speech made in the convention in Massachusetts met to ratify the Constitution of the United States, are liberal and just. Rev. Mr. Shute, who presented these views, was a Congregational clergyman, and a member of the convention.

"To establish," says he, "a religious test as a qualification for office in the proposed Federal Constitution, it appears to me, would be attended with injurious consequences to some individuals, and with no advantage to the whole.

"In this great and extensive empire, there is, and will be, a great variety of sects among its inhabitants. Upon a plan of a religious test, the question must be, who shall be excluded from national trust? Whatever bigotry might suggest, the dictates of conscience and equity, I conceive, will say, 'None.'

"Far from limiting my charity and confidence to men of my own denomination in religion, I suppose and believe, sir, there are worthy characters among men of every denomination, — among the Quakers, the Baptists, the Church of England, Papists, and even among those who have no other guide in the way to virtue and to heaven than the dictates of natural religion.

"I must, therefore, think, sir, that the proposed plan of government in this particular is wisely constructed; and that as all have an equal claim to the blessings of the government under which they live and which they support, so none shall be excluded by being of any particular denomination of religion.

"The presumption is, that the eyes of the people will be upon the faithful in the land, and, from a regard to their own safety, will choose for their rulers men of known abilities, of known probity, and of good moral character. The Apostle Peter tells us that 'God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him;' and I know of no reason why men of such a character in a community, of whatever denomination of religion, ecæteris paribus, with suitable qualifications, should not be acceptable to the people, and why they may not be employed by them with safety and advantage in the important offices of government.

"The exclusion of a religious test in the proposed Constitution, therefore, clearly appears to me, sir, to be in favor of its adoption."

The Constitution itself affirms its Christian character and purpose.

The seventh article declares it to be framed and adopted "by the unanimous consent of the States, the seventeenth day of September in the year of our LORD 1787, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth." The date of the Constitution is twofold: first it is dated from the birth of OUR Lord Jesus Christ, and then from the birth of our independence. Any argument which might be supposed to prove that the authority of Christianity is not recognized by the people of the United States, in the first mode would equally prove that the independence of the United States is not recognized by them in the second mode. The fact is, that the advent of Christ and the independence of the country are the two events in which, of all others, we are most interested, - the former in common with all mankind, the latter as the birth of our nation. This twofold mode, therefore, of dating so solemn an instrument was singularly appropriate and becoming.

A second fact is the harmony of the purposes for which the Constitution was established with the purposes and results of Christianity as affecting nations and the temporal interests of men. The preamble states this political and moral harmony in these words: -

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These fundamental objects of the Constitution are in perfect harmony with the revealed objects of the Christian religion. Union, justice, peace, the general welfare, and the blessings of civil and religious liberty, are the objects of Christianity, and are always secured under its practical and beneficent reign. "Our National Constitution is fitted to quicken the growth of a real manhood, to discipline the virtuous citizen for an ampler reward in heaven than he would reach if he were not trained to think for himself, to govern himself, to develop his own powers, to worship his Maker according to his own conscience."

A third fact indicating the Christian character of the Constitution is, that in no less than four places it requires an oath.

"No person can hold an executive or judicial office under it, or derived from any State, who does not take an oath to support it."

An oath is defined to be "a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments, according to that form which will bind his conscience most." Can it with propriety be said that a government which forbids the exercise of the slightest of its functions by any one who cannot make and has not made such an appeal to a supreme Being, in whom he believes, does not recognize the authority of God? It includes other sovereignties, and provides that even there no man shall be intrusted with any power that concerns the whole people, who fails to furnish this testimony of his religious character.

It was objected in several of the State conventions held for the adoption of the Federal Constitution, that it contained no religious test. It was argued that Mohammedans, pagans, or persons of no religion at all, might be chosen into the government. In North Carolina Mr. Iredell replied, "It was never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest interests to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course and maintain itself by the excellency of its own doctrines. The Divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said, 'The gates of hell shall not prevail against it'? It made much greater progress for itself than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth."

In the convention held in Massachusetts, Rev. Mr. Payson said, "The great object of religion being God supreme, and the seat of religion in man being the heart or conscience, i.e. the reason God has given us, employed on our moral actions in their most important consequences, as related to the tribunal of God, hence I infer that God alone is the God of the conscience, and, consequently, attempts to erect human tribunals for the consciences of men are impious encroachments upon the prerogatives of God." Theophilus Parsons, afterwards Chief-Justice, said, "It has been objected that the Constitution provides no religious test by oath, and we may have in power unprincipled men, atheists, and pagans. No man can wish more ardently than I do that all our public offices may be filled by men who fear God and hate wickedness; but it must remain with the electors to give the government this security. An oath will not do it. Will an unprincipled man be entangled by an oath? Will an atheist or a pagan dread the vengeance of the Christian's God, - a being, in his opinion,the creature of fancy and credulity? It is a solecism in expression. No man is so illiberal as to wish the confining of places of honor or profit to any one sect of Christians; but what security is it to government that every public officer shall swear that he is a Christian? For what will then be called Christianity? The only evidence we can have of the sincerity and excellence of a man's religion is a good life; and I trust that such evidence will be required of every candidate by every elector."

The theory on this point upon which the Constitution was formed was perfect. It secured the recognition of a Supreme Being and a future retribution, and excluded all tests founded upon distinctions of religion or sects. It found the Bible at large among the people for whom it provided a government, and it left among them the power of the gospel without restraint, free. It left it in the authority and made it the highest interest of the people to select the citizens to office who believed in the Bible and acknowledged that power by conforming their lives to its requirements.

More than sixty years of prosperity and domestic peace, under the practical working of this system, attest the wisdom of the scheme on which it was founded.

A fourth fact is its recognition of the Christian Sabbath.

Article 1, section 7, says, "If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."

"In adopting this provision," says Dr. Adams, "it was clearly presumed by the people that the President of the United States would not employ himself in public business on Sunday. The people had been accustomed to pay special respect to Sunday from the first settlement of the country. They assumed that the President also would wish to respect the day. They did not think it suitable or becoming to require him by a constitutional provision to respect the day: they assumed that he would adhere to the customary observance without a requirement. To have enacted a constitutional provision would have left him no choice, and would have been placing no confidence in him. They have placed the highest possible confidence in him, by assuming, without requiring it, that his conduct in this respect would be according to their wishes. Every man who is capable of being influenced by the higher and more delicate motives of duty cannot fail to perceive that the obligation on the President to respect the observance of Sunday is greatly superior to any which could have been created by a constitutional enactment. The people, in adopting the Constitution, must have been convinced that the public business intrusted to the President would be greater in importance and variety than that which would fall to the share of any functionary employed in a subordinate station. The expectation and confidence, then, manifested by the people of the United States, that their President will respect their Sunday, by abstaining from public business on that day, must extend a fortiori to all employed in subordinate stations."

Senator Frelinghuysen said in Congress, in 1830, "Our predecessors have acted upon a true republican principle, that the feelings and opinions of the majority were to be consulted. And when a collision might arise, inasmuch as only one day could be thus appropriated, they wisely determined, in accordance with the sentiments of at least nine-tenths of our people, that the first day of the week should be the Sabbath of our Government. This public recognition is accorded to the Sabbath in the Federal Constitution. The President of the United States, in the discharge of the high functions of his legislative department, is expressly relieved from all embarrassment on Sunday. Both Houses of Congress, the offices of the State, Treasury, War, and Navy Departments, are all closed on Sunday.

"Long before the American Revolution, it was decided that the desecration of the Sabbath was an offence at common law, which all admit recognizes Christianity. The Sabbath is recognized, both by the statute and common law, by the States which compose this Union, as a day upon which courts cannot sit or civil process issue; the servant, apprentice, and laborer are exempt from worldly avocations on that day, and protected in its enjoyment as a day of rest; and all entertainments, exhibitions, reviews, or other things calculated to disturb the religious observance of this day, are prohibited.

"The humanizing effect of the Sabbath, in promoting works of benevolence, charity, schools for the instruction of those who cannot obtain instruction elsewhere, and in strengthening the social relations of friends and neighbors, is among its most benign results. The principles which are then inculcated in churches of all denominations strengthen that public morality, good order, and obedience to the laws so essential to the security of the state.

"The framers of the Constitution, and those who for many years administered it, doubtless had in their eye the first day, - the Sabbath of the Christian religion. They were legislating not for Jews, Mohammedans, infidels, pagans, atheists, but for Christians. And, believing the Christian religion the only one calculated to sustain and perpetuate the government about to be formed, they adopted it as the basis of the infant republic. This nation had a religion, and it was the Christian religion.

"That Christianity is the religion of this country, and as such is recognized in the whole structure of its government, and lies at the foundation of all our civil and political institutions, — in other words, that Christianity, as really as republicanism, is part and parcel of our laws, - is evident from the following: -

"Such was the relation of Christianity to civil government in the several States as they existed prior to the formation of the present Federal Constitution; and there is no evidence that in acceding to said Constitution they surrendered such relation either to the general or to their own particular governments.

"The colonies from which our present States originated were planted by decidedly Christian people, to be Christian communities, and with such views of the relations between civil government and religion as were then universal in Christendom. The experiment of a nation without an established religion had not then been tried, nor did they think of instituting it: Christianity, therefore, was made part of their civil institutions, as well in their minuter branches as in their essential foundations.

"In Massachusetts and other Northern colonies, a membership in the Church established by law was necessary to citizenship in the commonwealth. In Virginia and other Southern colonies, the Church of England was by law established.

"By-and-by, when the colonial character had ceased, and that of States been assumed, the legal establishment of any one form of Christianity in preference to all other forms of the same was discontinued. In the adoption of the present Federal Constitution, it was declared, among the amendments of that instrument, that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' This article in the general Constitution, and the similar alterations in the laws of the several States above mentioned, by which the legal precedence of one form of Christianity over another was done away, are all the ground on which it can be asserted that either our General or State Governments have disowned all connection with the Christian religion as having any more countenance in their legislation than infidelity or Mohammedanism. But is this a warrantable conclusion? Is it not perfectly conceivable that Christianity may be the religion of the people and of the people's government, so far as that her great principles shall be assumed as the basis of their institutions and the promotion of those principles distinctly countenanced in their laws and customs, at the same time that no religion is, in the technical sense, 'established,' and no one form of Christianity is distinguished above another? To call religion into connection with the government, so far as to employ ministers of the gospel as chaplains, at the public charge, in Congress and other public departments, is decided by long-established practice to be not unconstitutional. And thus it is decided that it was not intended, by the article quoted above from the Constitution of the United States, to prevent the Government of the United States from being connected with religion, with some religion in preference to all others, or to have its institutions based upon the principles of Christianity instead of those of Deism or the Koran.

"How unlikely were the several States, in acceding to the present Constitution, to lay aside all connection with Christianity in the general institutions to which they gave birth, may be inferred from the consideration that in their own respective legislation a close relation between religion and the Government had always subsisted; that, though a strong aversion had arisen to the national establishment of any one form of Christianity, none had grown up against a distinct recognition of Christianity itself as the religion of the nation; and that the representatives of the States in the convention that formed the present Constitution were, for the most part, men of decided Christian principles."

Judge Wilson, a member of the convention that formed the Constitution, in an oration at Philadelphia, July, 1788, commemorative of the adoption of the Constitution by the people of the several States, depicts the future progress and glory of the American nation under the Constitution in these glowing words, - words of prophecy which have been fully realized. He said, -

"The commencement of our government has been eminently glorious: let our progress in every excellence be proportionally great. IT WILL IT MUST BE SO. What an enrapturing prospect opens on the United States! Placid Husbandry walks in front, attended by the venerable plough. Lowing herds adorn our valleys; bleating flocks spread over our hills; verdant meadows, enamelled pastures, yellow harvests, bending orchards, rise in rapid succession from East to West. Plenty, with her copious horn, sits easy smiling, and, in conscious complacency, enjoys and presides over the scene. Commerce next advances, in all her splendid and embellished forms. The rivers and lakes and seas are crowded with ships; their shores are covered with cities; the cities are filled with inhabitants. The Arts, decked with elegance, yet with simplicity, appear in beautiful variety and well-adjusted arrangement. Around them are diffused, in rich abundance, the necessaries, the decencies, and the ornaments of life. With heartfelt contentment, Industry beholds her honest labors flourishing and secure. Peace walks serene and unalarmed over all the unmolested regions; while liberty, virtue, and religion go hand in hand, harmoniously, protecting, enlivening, and exalting all. Happy country! may thy happiness be perpetual!"

The people who ordained such a noble constitution of government, and for whom it was made, are under the highest and most solemn obligations to preserve it for themselves, their children, and future generations.

"This constitution of government," says Justice Story, "must perish, if there be not that vital spirit in the people which alone can nourish, sustain, and direct all its movements. It is in vain that statesmen shall form plans of government in which the beauty and harmony of a republic shall be embodied in visible order, shall be built upon solid substructions, and adorned by every useful ornament, if the inhabitants suffer the silent power of time to dilapidate its walls or crumble its massy supporters into dust, if the assaults from without are never resisted and the rottenness and mining from within are never guarded against. Who can preserve the rights and liberties of a people when they shall be abandoned by themselves ? Who shall keep watch in the temple when the watchmen sleep at their post? Who shall call upon the people to redeem their possessions and revive the republic, when their own hands have deliberately and corruptly surrendered them to the oppressor and have built the prisons or dug the graves of their own friends? This dark picture, it is to be hoped, will never be applicable to the republic of America. And yet it affords a warning, which, like all the lessons of past experience, we are not permitted to disregard. America, free, happy, and enlightened as she is, must rest the preservation of her rights and liberties upon the virtue, independence, justice, and sagacity of the people. If either fail, the republic is gone. Its shadow may remain, with all the pomp and circumstance and trickery of government, but its vital power will have departed."

The following language fell from the lips of Alexander Hamilton, on his resignation of the office of Secretary of the Treasury, in 1795. Holding in his hand a small book containing a copy of the Federal Constitution, he said, "Now, mark my words! so long as we are a young and virtuous people, this instrument will bind us together in mutual interest, mutual welfare, and mutual happiness; but when we become old and corrupt it will bind us no longer."

This dark condition of the republic, which would be produced by the general corruption of the people and the government, can only be prevented by the universal belief and application of the principles stated in Webster's address before the New York Historical Society. He says, -

"If we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion, if we and they shall live always in the fear of God and shall respect his commandments, - if we and they shall maintain just moral sentiments, and such conscientious convictions of duty as shall control the heart and life, - we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country; and if we maintain those institutions of government, and that political union exceeding all praise as much as it exceeds all former examples of political association, we may be sure of one thing, that, while our country furnishes materials for a thousand masters of the historic art, it will be no topic for a Gibbon, - it will have no decline and fall. It will go on prospering and to prosper. But if we and our posterity neglect religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.

"If that catastrophe," he continues, "shall happen, let it have no history! Let the horrible narrative never be written! Let its fate be like that of the lost books of Livy, which no human eye shall ever read, or the missing Pleiad, of which no man can know more than that it is lost, and lost forever."