By

S. Henry Carnahan

N studying the formation of the nation and government of the United States of America, we find that the peoples of the early colonies in America were from various countries of the Old World. Many of them had come to the New World for the purpose of finding civil and religious freedom. Hence, their first step in establishing this new nation was the signing, by their representatives, of that immortal document, The Declaration of Independence.

In this document we read in the second paragraph:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that when ever 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, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

And the closing sentence is:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

A later step was the drafting and adoption of a "Constitution of the United States" as the basis for all Federal and State laws.

In this greatest of all modern civil instruments, the first sentence is sometimes spoken of as the "preamble" to the Constitution. But the term was not so understood by those who framed the instrument, for it is the enacting clause -an integral part of the Constitution itself.

Note by whom and for what purpose the instrument was brought forth:

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

For the further safeguarding of the individual citizens of the commonwealth.

in their sacred religious freedom, and also for their greater protection in civil liberty, other articles, from time to time, as amendments have been adopted in harmony with Article V of the original Constitution.

We call attention especially to Article I, or the first, of the Amendments, as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Some States have on their statute books Sunday laws. And at the November election last, the State of Oregon passed a special compulsory educational bill, which is really an anti-parochial, or anti-private school bill. Such laws are subversive of the Constitutional rights of the people.

Notice further here the relation the State laws should sustain to the national ('onstitution, thus:

"The American people constitute a nation, with a republican government. The nation has a constitution in which the character of the government is clearly delineated. This Con stitution is the supreme law of the land.

"Were the government a league of states, there could be no supreme national government; were the nation a consolidated republic, there could be no state constitutions.

"A State can do anything politically which does not contravene a law or the Constitution

of the nation. . . . The people of a State have a constitution, and may alter it at pleas ure, provided its provisions are in harmony with the national laws and Constitution." Israel Ward Andrews, D. D., LL. D., in his "Manual of the Constitution of the United States," pp. 19, 20.

Prof. Chas. F. Dole, of Massachusetts, in the preface of his book, "The American Citizen," says:

"There seems to be a growing demand for the more adequate teaching of morals in the schools, especially with reference to the making of good citizens. But it is difficult to teach morals directly, or apart from the concrete sub jects about which moral questions grow."

"Some may regret that the book does not trace government and ethics to a religious basis. . . . But there are at present too many dif ferences about definitions and names to make this branch of our subject suitable for a book designed for use in public schools."

Then in the body of the book, page 149. under the paragraph "The Tyranny of Majorities," he says:

"We have already seen that it is not only a king or a despot who may exercise tyranny. Sometimes the majority may abuse their power to the injury of the minority. . . . It needs, therefore, to be seen that gaining the vote of (Concluded on page 79)

IF I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution. George Washington.

Ideals

Shall They

Be Overthrown?

E. J. Hall

O

U. S. Capitol

NE of the strange things of history is that man seemingly forgets the lessons of the past, and in course of time, plunges into the very practices and policies that have wrought ruin to nations that are no more, or of those yet struggling under the weight of past errors in governmental affairs.

Liberty of conscience in matters of religion has been a subject of fierce conflict since the days of the Roman emperor Constantine. It was not so prior to the Christian era. At the time of Paul's visit to Athens and the Pantheon at Rome, there was a tolerant attitude of the ancient peoples toward all religions. This, however, was dual, or twofold, in character. While the individual was permitted to worship his own particular deity, he at the same time was required to render homage to the gods of the state. Even in early heathen governments, state religion, then as now, carried with it the elements of its own destruction, for the reason that those who believed in only one God were bound to come in conflict with the powers that be when required to acknowledge the gods of the state. Thus, as time went on, the conflict grew into a flame, until

By

J. B. Crouch

dynasties were overthrown, reigning sovereigns dethroned, and administrations and territorial dominions lost and won by intrigue or force of arms.

Nothing known in history has left in its wake a greater record of bloodshed. wrong, and devastation than has the attempt to control by civil law the consciences of men. What is a fair statement of the issue? Religious liberty, in the general acceptation of the term by publicists and judicial interpretation, is "the right or freedom of a person to worship or not to worship according to his own understanding or preferences. and within the requirements of public order, of teaching his religious beliefs without hindrance or molestation; the complete equality of all religions before the law."

The historical mutations relative to this right were all fresh in the minds of the men who braved the dangers of primitive trans-Atlantic travel, endured the hardships of pioneer life in America. and who built their altars to the true God in the formative days of this nation. The truthfulness or actual value of a person's religion is no part of the controversy. It is enough that there has sprung up from the deepest depths of

the human heart and mind an unalterable and unconquerable opposition to any authority seeking to force a man to worship or not to worship in a way not in harmony with his faith. Any attempt along this line not only endangers the state and nation, but is in derogation of religion itself.

Notwithstanding his profanation of God's holy Sabbath by decreeing the unscriptural Sunday as the rest day, Constantine, as early in his reign as A. D. 313, in what is known as the Edict of Milan, declared for freedom of worship. This liberality, however, was soon reversed by his reigning successor, and there followed a conflict in the world through the Dark Ages and on up to 1775, when it substantially subsided from its own exhaustion, and when, for the time being in this country, matters of taxation without

While the early American State constitutions made great concessions in matters of religious toleration, the true ideals of the nation then forming had not been fully expressed or crystallized into law until the first ten Amendments had been added to the Federal Constitution. In this the appellate courts of the times took advanced position, and not only showed great clearness of vision, but added much force and respectability to the principle that it was not the business of the law to prohibit a person from exercising his religious faith, "so long,"

U. & U.

as Blackstone puts it," as it did not threaten the ruin or disturbance of the state."

Maryland led off in 1649 with a toleration act giving freedom of worship to all who professed belief in Jesus Christ. But more conspicuous and important was the work done later by Roger Williams in founding the colony of Rhode Island. Virginia, in its constitution of 1776, was the first to adopt a Bill of Rights. Mr. Madison knew the prevailing sentiment in the convention. which framed the Federal Constitution because he was a part of it; and when the Virginia General Assembly, without proper consideration, passed a law incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church, at the urgency of the ministers of that faith, Mr. Madison led a revolt by the laity and petitioned its repeal,

which was done two years later. In this petition, among other reasons, it gives, "We remonstrate against said law because it admits the power of the legislative body to interfere in matters of religion, which we claim is not included in their jurisdiction." Mr. Jefferson declared that the Virginia statute of 1785, was intended "to comprehend within the mantle of its protection, the

Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination."

"Fear of the Established Church," said John Adams, "contributed as much as any other cause to arouse the attention, not only of the inquiring mind,

"It is accepted as an axiom by all Amer icans that the civil power, not only ought to be neutral and impartial as between different forms of faith, but ought to leave those matters entirely on one side, regarding them no more than it regards the artistic or the literary pursuits of the citizen. . . . Every religious

but of the common people, and urged them to close thinking on the constitutional authority of Parliament over the colonies." The establishment of national independence was generally followed by disestablishment of church. Yet it was not until the second decade of the nineteenth century had passed that the States of the Union were in substantial agreement with the article in the Federal Constitution supporting the freedom of religion. Massachusetts held on to the Congregational Church in its civil law until 1833. Timothy Dwight, president of Yale. University, never ceased to grieve to the day of his death over the policy of voluntary support of the gospel. It was only when freedom of religion was guaranteed under the law that the church in America became a militant force in the saving of souls. Then began a period of great religious awakening and evangelical effort. The slogan of the day was, "Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot." These were the days when the spirit of individual sovereignty, implanted by the Creator, ruled in the hearts of men, and when the call was heard for larger liberty in the spread of the gospel. Then men recognized the power of the Holy Spirit, and souls were converted to Christ.

MAX.

society can now organize itself in whatever way it pleases, lay down its own rules of faith and discipline, create and administer its own system of ju dicature, raise and apply its own funds at its uncontrolled diseretion. . . . The pas sion for equality, in religious as well as seeular matters, is everywhere too strong to be braved, and nothing excites more general disapprobation than any attempt by an ecclesiastical organi zation to interfere in politics.... The con clusion follows that the church as a spiritual entity will be happiest and strong est when it is left absolutely to itself, not patronized by the civil power, and not restrained by law, except when it may attempt to quit its proper sphere and intermeddle in secular affairs."

Mr. Bryce, long time the British ambassador at Washington, and recognized as one of the most intelligent students of the genius of our institutions, in his great work, "The American Commonwealth," writes with great comprehension of the liberty of conscience in the United States. He says:

Can we indulge the hope that the words of Daniel Webster, uttered from Faneuil Hall upon the occasion of the death of Jefferson and Adams (they having died on the same day), will be

verified: "The tears which flow and the honors that are paid when the founders of the Republic die, give hope that the Republie itself may be immortal"! American ideals have never ceased to puzzle the mother country and to be the wonder of the world. The London Times, in 1817, said:

"We know not how it is that a republican government (U. S.) can keep their states se cure and afford protection to their people, whilst liberty of person and of creed is un restrained in its exercise."

Do you want to maintain this proud position before the world? If so, the liberty of person and freedom of con