solemn affirmation, required of its functionaries, recognizes the truth that God is, that he is the avenger of perjury, and that the business of government is conducted under religious responsibilities. The first amendment of the constitution confesses the soundness of religious worship, and refuses to Congress the power of legislating to prohibit its free exercise.This instrument recognizes the first day of the week as sacred time, and exempts the president of the United States, by an explicit provision, from the discharge of official duties on that day. The sanctity of the first day of the week is purely of Christian authority, and not of mere national law. So far, then, at least, the system of grace is acknowledged, and Christian influence and character extended to the government. To these provisions of a religious nation, add the confession of God and his providence in the Declaration of Independence, a deed that lies deeply at the foundation of all our political institutions; the relation between the general and state governments, from the latter of which, as in the case of New-York and others, a consecrating influence extends to the latter; the facts, that on the Sabbath Congress adjourns, the courts of the Union are suspended, and the custom houses shut.* Each house of Congress, too, has its chaplain, a Christian minister, who daily opens their proceedings by prayer to God, in the name of Christ; and on the Lord's day ministers to them, as a leader in devotion and instruction. Chaplains are likewise employed by the government, in the army and navy. These Christian instructors are supported from the treasury of the Confederacy. On special occasions, too, the executive of the Union has recommended days of fasting, prayer, and thanksgiving, to be observed by the people.

From these facts it appears, that the government, instead

*The desecration of the Sabbath by the transportation of the mail is not forgotten. This is a practical evil, not authorized by any principle of the constitution. It is, indeed, an anomaly in the practice of the government, an invasion of state rights, in its principle dangerous, and inconsistent with the entire genius of our civil institutions. Its policy is as short sighted as it is profane. The gratifications of infidelity and the acquisitions of gain, procured by invading the sanctity of this day of sacred rest, aside from considerations purely religious, very poorly recompense the loss of those decencies of life, those humane sentiments, that civilization, that sense of order, and that happy moral influence upon society, which its regular observance produces and so effectually cherishes. Blot the Sabbath from the calander as a consecrated season, and the civil disorders, as well as the moral desolations of our social state, would soon admonish even the infidel himself, of the folly of his opposition to its sanctification.

of being infidel, is distinguished by many religious characteristics. Remember that it is a federal and not a national establishment. Connect it with the state government, and you will find, as has already been seen, that many of its defects are supplied; and of those which remain no approbation is required while they continue, no pledge is given to perpetuate them, and the way is open to amendment. I should as soon think of declaring void and of non-effect, a last will and testament, because the testator had not begun it in the name of God, or had omitted to record in it the hope of a blessed resurrection, as to nullify the federal constitution because of its alleged defects.

The religious test and establishment which the States refused to intrust to Congress, refer to European practice; and, to be sure, the tests and establishments of the nations thereon, had little to recommend them to the friends either of religion, or of man. At any rate, the people judged that their religion would be as safe in their own keeping, under the superintendence of the churches to which they respectively belonged, and the protection of their several States, as in the hand of Congress; and upon reflection few will be found to differ from their decision. If our civil institutions in these respects, have their defects, some compensation will be found in our exemption from the oppressions of a political church, and in the consequent freedom from either the reproach of persecution, or the profanity of an authoritative toleration. Persecution and toleration are equally unknown in the United States; and for ever may they both be strangers to our country.

Should you ask the objector to our institutions,—What would you have of moral and religious security for yourself, which you do not enjoy ?-What mean of extending intellectual and moral improvement to others, which is not protected by the strong arm of the social power? His reply very probably would be,-Nothing. What then does he wish? Why does he complain? Tell him that these institutions open the way for the attainment of all that the good man can desire; and that to the actual attainment of his wishes, all that is requisite under a beneficent Providence, is to have the administration of our affairs in the hands of upright and competent men, sustained by a sound and enlightened public sentiment, in the discharge of their respective duties. To have such represen

tatives and such a public sentiment, is in the hand of the people of the States. Let no citizen lend his suffrage to elevate the vicious and incompetent aspirant after power, and all will soon be well.

Can it be a serious question at this day-Because the States refused to delegate a little more or a little less authority, or because they refused to surrender into one consolidated mass of power their entire sovereignty, should the union of the States have been, or should it now be rejected? Reject a union predicated upon common interests, interests altogether distinct from the domestic evils of each, at the fearful hazard of losing all for which so much treasure had been spent, so many toils undergone, and so much blood profusely shed!Such a rejection must have been followed by scenes of crime and calamity which forbid description. I, therefore, dwell not on the sinking of heart which must have followed the disappointment of so many hopes, fondly cherished for the interests of our race, by the best of men. The failure of the American States in their hallowed designs, would for ages have produced a retrogression of the cause of man in other lands; while at home we should not only have had the thousands of African slaves, but should also have witnessed the millions of our own people sunk into vassalage, and, as in Europe, under the imposing name of freemen, retainers to imperious lordlings, shaking a heavier chain than the sons of Ham; with the prospect at a distance immeasurably greater of causes, moral and political, calculated to operate their final emancipation. A happier destiny awaited our country. Heaven secured it by the formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution; in which, though imperfect, no immoral principle is embraced, nor immoral act enjoined; and under which a condition of society has arisen that is the admiration of patriots, and a model to the nations.

Of the dangers, however, to which our country is exposed, you are not unapprized. Vigilance, fidelity, and candor, together with intelligence and an unceasing activity, guided by an uncompromising integrity, are indispensible to our safety. Should candor and forbearance be laid aside by the citizens, and each proceed to urge his own private expositions of every point in the civil deeds of the country, as terms of fellowship in their advantages, the dreadful effects would neither be diffi

cult to be foreseen, nor very distant in their operations. And none can apprehend more readily than yourself, how preposterous would be the introduction of these complicated subjects of political dispute, among the terms of the church's communion. Supposing all the members competent to decide upon the matter in contest, the measure would be extravagant; how much more so, to call upon every pious youth, and every devout and aged saint, who may seek admission to the fellowship of Zion, to pass, religiously, upon subjects which they never examined, which they are never likely to have the means of examining, and to the examination of which they are utterly incompetent?

But no church has ever attempted such legislation. In this land, assuredly no church, of which we have heard, has ever made the rejection of our civil institutions a tessera of fitness for her fellowship. Many individuals, may, indeed, have had their doubts, and may have expressed them, as to some parts of the moral character of those institutions, and with their scruples there was no ecclesiastical interference. Warnings may have been given, in particular cases, where there was danger of falling into sin, and individuals may have attempted, in some instances, to make their doubts conditions of their religious fellowship, but no ecclesiastical judicatory, by a deliberate deed, has done so. The historian may have recorded the views, the opinions, and the actings of individuals, but no historian ever proposed his record, no judicatory ever made such record a term of communion. The complexity of the subject, the moral character of the government, and the actual and extensive fellowship of Christians of the present churches with the government of the country, refute the idea of such legislation ever having taken place, and forbid the thought of ever attempting it in future. This recognition of the civil order of the country, by a communion with it, and with its functionaries in their official character, according to the convenience, inclination or interest of the individuals concerned,-but real. with all,—has been generally left to be regulated by an enlightened conscience, under a sense of responsibility to God, and the social authorities to which the individual was amenable for the uprightness of his deportment. Thus it must always be, unless a species of religious mechanism be established, which is a stranger to piety and alien to the spirit of the Reforma

tion.

"No connexion with the laws, the officers, or the order of the state, is prohibited by the church, except what truly involves immorality."* The fundamental legitimacy of the order, officers, and laws of the state is not disputed.

Such a course of administration must be followed either by the exclusion of many worthy characters, from the enjoyments of the church, or their abandonment of civil rights which they might possess, consistently with a due regard to all the obligations of the purest morality; neither of which alternatives should be needlessly imposed. It may be said of the social virtues as of the sciences,-they flourish most in the neighborhood of each other. The social constitution of man is addressed by every relation in life. The enlightened exercise of the principles of that constitution in any one department, fits for a more efficient employment of them in others. The exclusion of an individual from what concerns him in any of the great moral relationships of time, will soon be found to operate injuriously upon him in those in which he remains. Could we witness a religious community altogether separated from taking an active part in the extensive and interesting affairs of the nation where they reside, such exclusion, whether voluntary or by compulsion, would, in no long period of time, be sensibly felt in their ecclesiastical concerns, and its operation would soon disadvantageously appear in their intellectual and moral habits. Nothing, if we except the negation of moral principle itself, more directly tends to effect the degradation of man, than separation from all share in the liberalizing views, active pursuits, and honors of civil life. Upon this subject many admonitory lessons are furnished, which none should disregard. I dwell not upon the character of the free man of Liberia, contrasted with that of the Carolinian slave; nor will I compare the European serf with the American citizen, in illustration of my remark.

To effect such separation as that now referred to, in the United States, would be impossible. In vain would the indolence of the human character be addressed by the prospect of ease or of freedom from the perplexities of public life, amidst such objects of interest and spirit-stirring scenes as our country presents. Equally vain will the attempt be to persuade men, *Min. Ref. P. Ch. 1821.

10