the refuge of the people, when the Christian priesthood was in sole possession of learning and had to civilize as well as to evangelize the barbarians of northern and western Europe. By her influence over legislation the church abolished bad laws and customs, introduced benevolent institutions, and created a Christian state controlled by the spirit of justice. and humanity, and fit for self-government. 3. The American system differs from the Erastian or Cæsaro-Papal control of the state over the church, which obtained in the old Byzantine Empire, and prevails in modern Russia, and in the Protestant states of Europe, where the civil government protects and supports the church, but at the expense of her dignity and independence, and deprives her of the power of self-government. The Erastian system was based on the assumption that all citizens are also Christians. of one creed, but is abnormal in the mixed character of government and people in the modern state. In America, the state has no right whatever to interfere with the affairs of the church, her doctrine, discipline, and worship, and the appointment of ministers. It would be a great calamity if religion were to become subject to our ever-changing politics. 4. The American system differs from the system of toleration, which began in Germany with the Westphalia Treaty, 1648; in England with the Act of Toleration, 1689, and which now prevails over nearly all Europe; of late years, nominally at least, even in Roman Catholic countries, to the very gates of the Vatican, in spite of the protest of the Pope. Toleration exists where the government supports one or more churches, and permits other religious communities under the name of sects (as on the continent), or dissenters and nonconformists (as in England), under certain conditions. In America, there are no such distinctions, but only churches or denominations on a footing of perfect equality before the law. To talk about any particular denomination as the church, or the American church, has no meaning, and betrays ignorance or conceit. Such exclusiveness is natural and logical in Romanism, but unnatural, illogical, and contemptible in any other church. The American laws know no such institution as "the church," but only separate and independent organi zations. Toleration is an important step from state-churchism to free-churchism. But it is only a step. There is a very great difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration is a concession, which may be withdrawn; it implies a preference for the ruling form of faith and worship, and a practical disapproval of all other forms. It may be coupled with many restrictions and disabilities. We tolerate what we dislike, but cannot alter; we tolerate even a nuisance if we Acts of toleration are wrung from a government by the force of circumstances and the power of a minority too influential to be disregarded. In this way even the most despotic governments, as those of Turkey and of Russia, are tolerant; the one toward Christians and Jews, the other toward Mohammedans and dissenters from the orthodox Greek Church; but both deny the right of self-extension and missionary operations except in favor of the state religion, and both forbid and punish apostasy from it. Prince Gortschakoff, the late chancellor of the Russian Empire, before an international deputation of the Evangelical Alliance, pleading for religious freedom in behalf of the persecuted Lutherans of the Baltic provinces in 1871, boldly declared, within my hearing, that Russia was the most tolerant country in the world, and pointed in proof to half a dozen churches of different denominations in the principal street of St. Petersburg, but protested at the same time against what he called propagandism. The great Russian statesman did not, or would not understand the vast difference between toleration and liberty. The English Lord Stanhope, in a speech in the House of Lords in 1827, on the Bill for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, said: "The time was, when toleration was craved by dissenters as a boon; it is now demanded as a right; but a time will come when it will be spurned as an insult." In our country we ask no toleration for religion and its free exercise, but we claim it as an inalienable right. "It is not toleration," says Judge Cooley, "which is established in our system, but religious equality." Freedom of religion is one of the greatest gifts of God to man, without distinction of race and color. He is the author and lord of conscience, and no power on earth has a right to stand between God and the conscience. A violation of this divine law written in the heart is an assault upon the majesty of God and the image of God in man. Granting the freedom of conscience, we must, by logical necessity, also grant the freedom of its manifestation and exercise in public worship. To concede the first and to deny the second, after the manner of despotic governments, is to imprison the conscience. To be just, the state must either support all or none of the religions of its citizens. Our government supports none, but protects all. 5. Finally—and this we would emphasize as especially important in our time,—the American system differs radically and fundamentally from the infidel and red-republican theory of religious freedom. The word freedom is one of the most abused words in the vocabulary. True liberty is a positive force, regulated by law; false liberty is a negative force, a release from restraint. True liberty is the moral power of self-government; the liberty of infidels and anarchists is carnal licentiousness. The American separation of church and state rests on respect for the church; the infidel separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself. The infidel theory was tried and failed in the first Revolution of France. It began with toleration, and ended with the abolition of Christianity, and with the reign of terror, which in turn prepared the way for military despotism as the only means of saving society from anarchy and ruin. Our infidels and anarchists would re-enact this tragedy if they should ever get the power. They openly profess their hatred and contempt of our Sunday-laws, our Sabbaths, our churches, and all our religious institutions and societies. Let us beware of them! The American system grants freedom also to irreligion and infidelity, but only within the limits of the order and safety of society. The destruction of religion would be the destruction of morality and the ruin of the state. Civil liberty requires for its support religious liberty, and cannot prosper without it. Religious liberty is not an empty sound, but an orderly exercise of religious duties and enjoyment of all its privileges. It is freedom in religion, not freedom from religion; as true civil liberty is freedom in law, and not freedom from law. Says Goethe: "In der Beschränkung erst zeigt sich der Meister, Republican institutions in the hands of a virtuous and God-fearing nation are the very best in the world, but in the hands of a corrupt and irreligious people they are the very worst, and the most effective weapons of destruction. An indignant people may rise in rebellion against a cruel tyrant; but who will rise against the tyranny of the people in possession of the ballot-box and the whole machinery of government? Here lies our great danger, and it is increasing every year. Destroy our churches, close our Sunday-schools, abolish the Lord's Day, and our republic would become an empty shell, and our people would tend to heathenism and barbarism. Christianity is the most powerful factor in our society and the pillar of our institutions. It regulates the family; it enjoins private and public virtue; it builds up moral character; it teaches us to love God supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves; it makes good men and useful citizens; it denounces every vice; it encourages every virtue; it promotes and serves the public welfare; it upholds peace and order. Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people, and with Christianity are bound up all our hopes for the future. This was strongly felt by Washington, the father of his country, "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen "; and no passage in his immortal farewell address is more truthful, wise, and worthy of constant remembrance by every American statesman and citizen than that in which he affirms the inseparable connection of relig ion with morality and national prosperity. THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. The legal basis of American Christianity in its relation to the civil government is laid down in the Constitution of the United States, which this year enters upon its second centennial. This great document was framed after the achievement of national independence in a convention of delegates from twelve of the original States (all except Rhode Island), in the city of Philadelphia, between May 14th and September 17, 1787, by the combined wisdom of such statesmen as Hamilton, Madison, King, Morris, Sherman, Dickinson, Pinckney, Franklin, under the presiding genius of Washington. It was ratified by eleven States before the close of the year 1788, and went into operation in March, 1789.' It was materially improved by ten amendments, which were recommended by several States as a guarantee of fundamental rights, proposed by the first Congress in 1789-90, and adopted in 1791. To these were subsequently added five new amendments, namely: Article XI. in 1793; Article XII. in 1803; Article XIII. in 1865; Article XIV. in 1868; Article XV. in 1870. The last three are the result of the civil war, and forbid slavery, declare the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and secure the right of citizens to vote irrespective "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." 1 Delaware (Dec. 7, 1787), New Jersey (Dec. 18, 1787), Georgia (Jan. 2, 1788), and Maryland (April 28, 1788) ratified the Constitution unanimously and unconditionally; Pennsylvania (Dec. 12, 1787), with a majority of 15 (45 out of 60); Connecticut (Jan. 9, 1788), with a majority of 88 (128 against 40); Massachusetts (Feb. 7, 1788), by a vote of 187 to 168; South Carolina (May 23, 1788), with three recommendations; Virginia (July 26, 1788), by a majority of 10 (89 to 79), and with a declaration of a bill of rights; New Hampshire (June 21, 1788), with twelve alterations and provisions; New York (July 26, 1788), with a majority of only three (30 to 27). The remaining two States adopted the Constitution afterward-North Carolina, November 21, 1789; Rhode Island, May 29, 1790. During the deliberations for its adoption, it was ably defended by Alexander Hamilton, of New York, James Madison, of Virginia, and John Jay, of New York, in The Federalist (1787 to 1788), against the attacks of the antiFederalists-newly edited by John C. Hamilton, Philadelphia (Lippincott & Co.), 1873, (659 pages). Another edition by Henry B. Dawson, New York, 1878 (615 pages). But The Federalist is silent on the subject of religion. |