CHAPTER V.

PRESENT CHARACTER OF THE STATE

SYSTEMS.

AND now, let me ask, does the argument end here? Can it be brought no further down? Are we not in some fair sense of terms, a christian people still?

There is encouragement in knowing that we still pretend to be so. However men may think or speak concerning personal religion, christianity is at least considered reputable as a general attribute of the nation. Our pride, if nothing else, would claim it for the public fame.

Nor is the pretension groundless, as a glance at the subsisting legal economy of the states will show.

Even the constitutional law of the state governments, though many changes have been made in it, continues in the main favourable. Of the states that once possessed establishments of religion,

most are now without them; for the reason probably that the tendency of such establishments has of late become better understood, as prejudicial to religion itself, no less than to other interests. Two of the states (Maryland and North-Carolina) remain steadfast, I believe, to this hour, in holding christians alone eligible to public trusts; and there is scarce an instance among them where christianity has not more or less of constitutional protection. The advantages of public worship and of general piety are widely recognsied and sought to be preserved in this manner.

In one particular deserving special notice, all our constitutions are exactly alike in their religious tenor they all guarantee the rights of con

science.

But to whom? guaranty is general in its terms, the liberty secured by it is not strictly religious, but belongs to everybody? to christians indeed, but at the same time and in equal measure, to the unbeliever and the licentious? Is the benefit of such a guaranty to be claimed for men having no imaginable interest in its subject matter? General as the terms are, there must be one implied reserve. Persons possessing no rights of the description which the guaranty applies to; none that can be the better or the worse, the more or less secure, for having or wanting the protection it offers; in a word, no

Will it be said that because the

rights of conscience practically understood; come not, I should think, within its scope, and can with no propriety be numbered among its objects.

Conscience respects essentially the divine government. Rights or liberties of conscience, have no meaning but in this relation. They are religious things; and it is only to religious beings they can be said to appertain. Men of the world may have honour, may have policy; but these are not conscientious principles, nor can entitle any one to the securities that have been provided, no matter how broadly, for the freedom of conscientious action. Something more is requisite. There must be some regard for another law than that of worldly interest or human opinion; a law that goes to the heart; that tries the reins of the inner man, while it points to issues larger than earthly destinies, more lasting than time. Such a law there is, and conscience is the principle that has to do with it. Conscience is a peculiar principle. To protect its rights is to protect the use of them: they are practical rights: and what I pray does the use of them consist in, if not in active religion? worshipping God, doing what he commands, and forwarding the design of his kingdom? To enjoy liberty of conscience is to believe, towards him, as we have evidence, and to practice freely as we believe. Is this a boon for unbelievers ? Unbelief is not to be disturbed in its retirement, its

private haunts; but having no religious functions to discharge, no worship to render, no behests of heaven to heed, no kindly purposes of heaven's empire to subserve-in short, no conscience, and no rights of conscience to be cared for by the laws; what legal passport can it claim for appearing abroad, or ever going forth of its den? Why should such a privilege be promised it? Why should unbelief be anticipated by the organic laws with fostering provisions? Has it a character deserving this? is it known to the world as a benefactor? Why place bad principles on a footing with the best? Is liberty of conscience to be confounded with the license that acts against conscience? Do we hold our religious freedom in common with knaves and profligates? and on the same warrant too? Can they challenge the constitutions of the land as well as we? Absurd. The constitutions of the land, so far as religion or conscience is concerned, are made for us, not them; in furtherance of our liberties, not theirs. They are christian constitutions.

And with these elements, still found in the essential structure of the state governments, the municipal order of the country is everywhere in full accordance.

Take for instance the statute regulations that are universal among us, for enforcing a due observance of the christian sabbath. Whence come these

regulations? From the light of nature? from the arts of civilization? from the discoveries of science? Has human wisdom invented them? Has philosophy found out the glorious secret of a day in seven to the Lord? Who does not see, that our lawmakers have taken their lesson here from revelation? and whether consciously or not, have legislated for us distinctly as a christian people?

Take another instance. There is not a state perhaps in the union-I am sure there are not many, for I have searched far without finding one

-in which penalties are not established by law against profane swearing. And again I ask, why is this, if not because it is found written, "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain?" What is it to swear profanely? Is it to insult the deities of Hindostan or of ancient Rome? to speak lightly of Vishnoo or of Jupiter-tonans? Or is it rather, to do irreverence to the christian's God? Is there any form of the offence but this, that could possibly attract the notice of the laws in question? and if none, then what are those laws but solemn recognitions of the same God as the God of the land, and of the volume that reveals him, as the acknowledged text book of the principles that govern it?

Illustrations of like bearing might be multiplied from various statutory topics; such as the religious peace of society, the decorums that relate to public