Larger font
Smaller font
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font

    What Is the True Relation that Exists Between Religion and the State?

    THE first of a series of lectures on our National Constitution, and Religion and the State, was delivered Tuesday, January 8, in the Temple, before a highly appreciative audience, by A. T. Jones, editor of the American Sentinel.TTL 1.1

    “As our National Constitution now stands, there is a total separation between church and state; as, when the proposed amendment shall have been adopted, there will be a union. Which of these shall we favor? is the question before us to-night. The amendment to which I refer is sometimes called “The Blair Educational Amendment;” but it would more properly be called “The Church and State Amendment,” or “The Blair Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” because that is what it really is.TTL 1.2


    In the Senate of the United States, May 25, 1888, Mr. Blair introduced the following joint resolution, which was read twice, and ordered to lie on the table; and September 14, 1888, it was ordered to be printed: “Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting establishments of religion and free pubic schools.”TTL 1.3

    It will be seen at a glance that this is only to reverse the provisions of the First Amendment to our Constitution as it is:—“Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Therefore our inquiry to-night shall be, Is our Constitution right as it is? or will it not be right until such an amendment shall have been adopted?TTL 1.4

    As the amendment is proposed professedly in behalf of Christianity, the words of Christ are properly the source of inquiry on the subject. This would be so in any case; and I shall never offer an apology to any audience for taking the position that the word of Jesus Christ is the supreme standard upon any subject upon which he speaks. Has he spoken anything on this question? Let us see.TTL 1.5

    “Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. We know that thou art true, and teaches the way of God in truth. Tell us, therefore, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Whose is this image and superscription? They said unto him, Cesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s; and unto God, the things that are God’s.”—Matthew 22:15-21.TTL 1.6

    In these words Christ has established a clear distinction between Cesar and God, that is, between the civil and religious powers, and between what we owe to the civil power and what we owe to the religious power. That which is Cesar’s is to be rendered to Cesar alone; that which is God’s is to be rendered to God alone. To say that we are to render to Cesar that which is God’s, or that we are to render to God by Cesar that which is God’s, is to pervert the words of Christ, and make them meaningless.TTL 1.7

    These words show, not only that there are things that pertain to Cesar alone and things that pertain to God alone, but that it is our duty as servants of Christ to know what these things are, and accordingly render to Cesar that which is Cesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.TTL 1.8

    As the term Cesar refers to civil government, it is apparent that the duties which we owe to Cesar are civil duties, while those we owe to God are wholly moral or religious duties. Webster defines as “The recognition of God as an object of worship, love, and obedience;” and another definition is “a man’s relation of faith and obedience to God.” It is evident, therefore, that religion and religious duties pertain solely to God, and that which is God’s is to be rendered to him, and not to Cesar; it follows inevitably that civil government can never of right have anything to do with religion,—with a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God.TTL 1.9

    In support of the doctrine that civil government has the right to act in things pertaining to God, the text of scripture is quoted which says: “The powers that be are ordained of God.” This passage is found in Romans 13:1. The first nine verses of that chapter are devoted to the subject, showing that the powers that be are ordained of God, and enjoining upon Christians, upon every soul in fact, the duty of respectful subjection to civil government.TTL 1.10

    By those who advocate a religious amendment to the Constitution, it is argued that because the powers that be are ordained of God, it must have something to do with men’s relations to God. Is it a sound argument to say that because a thing is ordained of God, it is ordained to every purpose and work under the sun? A minister of the gospel is ordained of God,—but for what? To preach the gospel; and not as too many ministers now-a-days seem to think, as ministers of the law or politics. No minister of the gospel was ever ordained as a minister of the law, either moral or civil; and when a minister enters on any such work as that, he is doing a work that Christ never sent him to do.TTL 1.11

    By reading the first nine verses of the 13th chapter, it will be seen that this scripture is but an exposition of the words of Christ, “Render to Cesar that which is Cesar’s.” It is God’s own commentary on these words, and in them there is a recognition of the rightfulness of civil government, that it has claims upon us, and that it is our duty to recognize those claims. This scripture in Romans 13, simply states the same thing in other words: “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God; for the powers that be are ordained of God.”TTL 1.12

    Again: the Saviour’s words were called out by a question concerning tribute. They said to him, “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar, or not?” Referring to the same thing, Romans 13:6 says: “For this cause pay ye tribute.” In answer to the question of the Pharisees about the tribute, Christ said, “Render to Cesar the things which are Cesar’s.” Romans 13:7 says: Render to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due.” We repeat therefore that Romans 13:9 is the Lord’s own commentary upon the words of Christ in Matthew 22:17-21.TTL 1.13

    The passage in Romans refers first to civil government, the higher powers, not the highest power, the powers that be. Next it speaks of rulers bearing the sword and attending upon matters of tribute. Then he adds, “Render tribute to whom tribute is due, and owe no man anything, but to love one another, for he that loveth fulfilleth the law.” Then he refers to the last five commandments, and says: “If there be any other commandment it is briefly comprehended in this saying; namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” There are other commandments of the same law to which Paul here refers, and he knew it. Why then did he say, “If there be any other commandment” etc.? There was the first table of the law, containing the commandments which say, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me;” “Thou shalt not make any graven image;” “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;” “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy;” and the other commandment in which is comprehended all these, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” Paul well knew of these commandments. Why then, did he say, “If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying; namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”? Answer: Because he is writing upon the words of the Saviour which relate to our duties to civil government. Our duties under civil government pertain only to the government and to our fellow men; and the powers of civil government pertain solely to men in their relations one to another, and to the State. But the Saviour’s words in the same connection entirely separated that which pertained to God from that which pertained to civil government. The things that pertain to God are not to be rendered to civil government,—to the powers that be: therefore it was that Paul, although knowing full well that there were other commandments, said, “If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying; namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;” that is, if there be any other commandment which comes into the relation between man and civil government, it is comprehended in this saying that he shall love his neighbor as himself; showing conclusively that the powers that be, though ordained of God, are so ordained only in things pertaining to his fellow man, and in those things alone.TTL 1.14

    Further: as in this divine record of the duties that men owe to the powers that be, there is no reference whatever to the first table of the law, it therefore follows, that the powers that be, although ordained of God, have nothing to do with the relations which men bear toward God.TTL 2.1

    As the ten commandments contain the whole duty of man, and as in God’s own enumeration of the duties that men owe to the powers that be, there is no mention of any of the things contained in the first table of the law, it follows that none of the duties enjoined in the first table of the law of God, do men owe to the powers that be. That is to say, again, the powers that be, although ordained of God, are not ordained of God in anything pertaining to a single duty enjoined in any of the first four of the ten commandments. These are duties that men owe to God; and with these the powers that be, can of right have nothing to do; because Christ has commanded to render unto God, not to Cesar, nor by Cesar, that which is God’s.TTL 2.2

    Let us look a moment at this question form a common-sense point of view. Of course, all we are saying is common sense, but let us have this additional. I will read a sentence from a judicial decision which has the honor to be, so far as I have been able to discover, and I think it is in fact the only supreme court decision that has been rendered in the United States which has attempt to lift state constitution and legislation up to the level of the National Constitution. It says:—TTL 2.3

    “When societies are formed, each individual surrenders certain rights, and as an equivalent for that surrender, has secured to him the enjoyment of certain others appertaining to his person and property, without the protection of which society cannot exist.”TTL 2.4

    I have the right to protect my person and property against all comers. Every other person ha the same right, and if this right is to be personally exercised in all cases by every one, then in the present condition of human nature, every man’s hand will be against his neighbor. That is simply Anarchy, and in such a condition of affairs, society cannot exist. Now suppose a hundred of us are thrown together in a certain place where there is no established order, each one has all the rights of any other one. But if each one is individually to exercise these rights of self protection, he has only the assurance of that degree of protection which he alone can furnish to himself, which we have seen is exceedingly slight. Therefore we all come together, and each surrenders to the whole body that individual right; and in return for this surrender he receives the power of all for his protection. He therefore receives the help of the other ninety-nine to protect himself from the invasion of his rights, and he is thus made one hundred times more secure in his right of person and property than he is without this surrender. But what condition of things can ever be conceived of among men that would justify any man in surrendering his right to believe? What could he receive as an equivalent? When he has surrendered his right to believe, he has virtually surrendered his right to think. When he surrenders his right to believe, he surrenders every thing, and it is impossible for him ever to receive an equivalent; he has surrendered his very soul. Eternal life depends upon believing on the Lord Jesus Christ; and the man who surrenders his right to believe, surrenders eternal life. Says the Scripture, “With the mind I serve the law of God.” A man who surrenders his right to believe surrenders God. Consequently no man, no association, or organization of men, can ever rightly ask of any man a surrender of his right to believe. Every man has the right, so far as organizations of men are concerned, to believe as he pleases; and that right so long as he is a Protestant, so long as he is a Christian, yes, so long as he is a man, he never can surrender, and he never will.TTL 2.5

    In Jeremiah 27:1-8 is clearly shown that the power of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, was ordained of God; nor to him alone; but to his son and his son’s son, which is to say, that the power of the Babylonian empire, as an imperial power, was ordained of God. Nebuchadnezzar was plainly called by the Lord, “my servant”; and the Lord says, “I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon,” and says that whatever nation of kingdom will not serve the king of Babylon, and will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and will not put their neck under the yoke of the King of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord.” Now let us see whether this power was ordained of God in things pertaining to God. In the third chapter of Daniel we have the record that Nebuchadnezzar made a great image of gold, set it up in the plain of Dura, and gathered together the governors, the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces to the dedication of the image; and they stood before the image that had been set up. Then a herald from the king cried aloud, “To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages that ..... ye fall down and worship the golden image that the king hath set up.”—Daniel 3:4, 5.TTL 2.6

    In obedience to this command all the people bowed down before the image and worshiped, except three Jews. Atheists, they would be called now-a-days,—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. This disobedience on the part of the Jews was reported to Nebuchadnezzar, and he commanded them to be brought before him, and asked them whether it was intentional that they had disobeyed his order, and repeated his command himself direct to them. These men knew that the had been made subjects to the king of Babylon by the Lord himself. It had been prophesied by Isaiah (chapter 39) and by Jeremiah. Yet knowing all this, and having the Scriptures in their hands, they made answer to Nebuchadnezzar thus: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us out of thine hand, O king, but if not, be it known unto thee, O King, that we will not serve thy Gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Then these men were plunged into the fiery furnace, heated seven times hotter than it was wont to be heated; but suddenly Nebuchadnezzar in astonishment rose up in haste and said to his counsel, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered, “True O King.” But he exclaimed, “Lo I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”TTL 2.7

    The men were called forth. “Then Nebuchadnezzar spake and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and hath changed the King’s word and yielded their bodies that they might not serve nor worship any God except their own God.”TTL 2.8

    Here we have demonstrated the following facts: First, God gave power to the kingdom of Babylon. Secondly, he directly subjected his people to that power. Thirdly, he directly, by a wonderful miracle, defended his people from a certain assertion of that power. Does the Lord contradict himself, or oppose himself? Far from it. What then does this show? It shows, conclusively, that this was an undue exercise of the power which God had given. By this it is demonstrated that the power of Babylon, although ordained of God, was not ordained unto any such purpose as that for which it was here exercised, that though ordained of God it was not ordained in things pertaining to men’s consciences. And it was written for the instruction of future ages, and for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come.TTL 2.9

    Another instance: we read above that the power of Babylon was given to Nebuchadnezzar and his won, and his son’s son, and that all nations should serve Babylon until that time, and that then nations and kings should sever themselves of him. Other prophecies show that Babylon was then to be destroyed. Jeremiah says, (51:28) that the king of the Medes, and all his land, with the captains and rulers should be prepared against Babylon to destroy it. Isaiah 21:2 shows that Persia (Elam) should accompany Media in the destruction of Babylon. Isaiah 5:1-4, names Cyrus as the leader of the forces more than one hundred years before he was born, and a hundred and seventy-four years before the time. And of Cyrus, the prophet said from the Lord, “I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways, he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward saith the Lord of hosts.” Isaiah 45:13. But in the conquest of Babylon, Cyrus was but the leader of the forces and the rule fell to Darius, the Mede; for said Daniel to Belshazzar on the night when Babylon fell, they kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians. Then the record proceeds, “In that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans slain, and Darius, the Median, took the kingdom;” and of him we read in Daniel 11:1, the words of the angel Gabriel to the prophet, “I, in the first year of Darius, the Mede, even I stood to confirm and to strengthen him.TTL 3.1

    There can be no shadow of doubt therefore that the power of Media and Persia was ordained of God. Darius made Daniel prime minister of the empire. But a number of the presidents and princes, envious of his position, sought to unseat him. After earnest attempts to find occasion against him, they were forced to confess that there was neither error nor fault in his conduct. “Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except ye find if against him concerning the law of his God.”TTL 3.2

    They, therefore, assembled together to the king, and told him that all the presidents of the kingdom, and the governors, and the princes, and the captains, had consulted together to establish a royal statute; and to make a decree that whoever should ask a petition of any god or man, except the king, for thirty days, should be cast into the den of lions. Darius, never dreaming what they were after, signed the decree. Daniel knew that the decree was made, and that it was signed by the king. It was hardly possible for him not to know it, he went into his house, and, the windows being opened toward Jerusalem, he knelt three times a day, and prayed and gave thanks to God, as he did aforetime. He did not even close his windows, but left them open, as before, and prayed and gave thanks as he did before. He simply paid no attention to the decree that had been made, although he knew that decree forbade his doing as he did under the penalty of being thrown to the lions. He knew that although the power of Media and Persia was ordained of God, it was not ordained unto any such purpose as that to which it was here employed.TTL 3.3

    As was to be expected, the men who had secured the passage of the decree, found him praying and making supplication before his God. They went at once to the king, and asked him if he had not signed a decree that if any one should do any such thing as that for thirty days, except to the king, he should be given to the lions. The king replied that it was true, according to the laws of the Medes and Persians, which could not be altered. Then they told him that Daniel did not regard the king nor the decree that he had signed, but made his petition three times a day. The king saw in a moment that he had allowed himself to be entrapped; but there was no remedy. Those who were pushing the matter, held before him the law, and said, “Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is that no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed.” Nothing can be done, but that the decree, being law, must be enforced. Daniel was given to the lions. He stayed in the den all night. When morning came, the king came to the den, and called to Daniel, and Daniel replied, “O king, live forever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me; for as much as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.”TTL 3.4

    Thus again God has shown that although the powers that be are ordained of God, they are not ordained in things that pertain to men’s relation toward God. Christ’s words are a positive declaration to that effect, and Romans 13:1-9 is a further exposition of that principle. The United States is the only government in history that is based on the principles established by Christ. In article VI of the National Constitution, this nation says “No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States;” and by an amendment making more certain the adoption of the principle, it declares in the first amendment to the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This first amendment was adopted in 1789, by the first Congress that ever met under the Constitution. In 1796 a treaty was made with Tripoli in which it was declared Art. II, that, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” This treaty was framed by an ex-Congregationalist clergyman, and was signed by President Washington. It was not out of disrespect to religion or Christianity that these clauses were placed in the Constitution, and that this one was inserted in that treaty; on the contrary, it was entirely on account of their respect for religion, and the Christian religion in particular, as being beyond the province of civil government, pertaining solely to the conscience, and resting entirely with the individual and God. It was because of this that this nation was constitutionally established according to the principle of Christ, demanding of men only that they render to Cesar that which is Cesar’s, and leaving them entirely free to render to God that which is God’s, if they choose, as they choose, and when they choose. Or, as expressed by Washington himself in reply to an address upon the subject of religious legislation:—TTL 3.5

    “Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable along to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.”TTL 3.6

    We cannot more fittingly conclude this point than with the following tribute of George Bancroft to this principle as embodied in the words of Christ, and in the American constitution:—TTL 3.7

    “In the earliest states known to history, government and religion were one and indivisible. Each state had its special deity, and of these protectors, one after the other might be overthrown in battle, never to rise again. The Peloponnesian war grew out of a strife about an oracle. Rome, as it sometimes adopted into citizenship those whom it vanquished, introduced in like manner, and with good logic for that day, the worship of their gods. No one thought of vindicating religion for the conscience of the individual till a voice in Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the life of humanity by establishing a pure, spiritual, and universal religion for all mankind, enjoined to render to Cesar only that which is Cesar’s. The rule was upheld during the infancy of the gospel for all men. No sooner was this religion adopted by the chief of the Roman Empire than it was shorn of its character of universality, and enthralled by an unholy connection with an unholy state, and so it continued till the new nation, the least defiled with barren scoffings of the eighteen century, the most general believers in Christianity, or any people of that age, the chief heir of the reformation in its purest form, when it came to establish a government for the United States, refused to treat faith as a matter to be regulated by a corporate body, or having a headship in a monarchy or a State.TTL 3.8

    “Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely ordained of God in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the people of the several states, withheld from the federal government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the infinite spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity and power.”—History of the Formation of the Constitution. Last chapter.TTL 3.9

    Thus the Constitution of the United States as it stands, is the sole monument of all history representing the principle that Christ established for earthly governments. And under it, in liberty, civil and religious, in enlightenment, and in progress, this nation has deservedly stood as the beacon light to all other nations for a hundred years.TTL 4.1

    Another important question to consider in this connection is, how are the powers that be, ordained of God? Is it direct and miraculous, or providential? We have seen by the Scriptures that the power of Nebuchadnezzar as king of Babylon was ordained of God. Did God send a prophet or priest to anoint him king? or did he send a heavenly call as to Moses and Gideon? Not at all. Nebuchadnezzar was king because his father was king. How did his father become king? Thus: in 625 B. C., Babylonia was but a province of the empire of Assyria, Media was another. Both revolted at once. The king of Assyria gave Nabopolassar command of a large force, and sent him to Babylonia to quell the revolt, while he himself led other forces into Media, and put down the insurrection there. Nebopolassar did his work so well in Babylonia that the king of Assyria rewarded him with the command of that province with the title, king of Babylon. Thus we see Nabopolassar received his power from the king of Assyria. The king of Assyria received his power from his father, Asshurbanipal; and he from his father, Esarhaddon. Esarhaddon received his from his father, Sennacharib. Sennacharib from his father, Sargon, and Sargon received his from the troops in the field, otherwise from the people. Thus we see that the power of the king of Babylon and of Nebuchadnezzar, or of his son, or of his son’s son, was simply providential, and sprung ultimately from the people.TTL 4.2

    Take, for instance, Queen Victoria, Queen of England. How did she become so? Simply from the fact that she was the first in the line of the descendants when William the Fourth died. Through one line she traces her royal lineage to William the Conqueror. But who was William the Conqueror? He was a Norman chief, who led his forces into England in 1066, and established his power there. How did he become a chief of the Normans? The Normans made him their chief; so in that line it is clear that the power of Queen Victoria sprung from the people. Take the other line. The house that now rules Britain represented in Victoria, is the House of Hanover. Hanover is a province in Germany. How did the House of Hanover get into England? When Queene Anne died, the line of succession was through George of Hanover, who became king of England under the title of George the First. How did he secure his princely dignity? Through his lineage, from Henry the Lion, son of Henry the Proud, who received the duchy of Saxony from Frederick Barbarossa in 1156. Henry the Lion was a prince of the house of Guelph, of Swabia. The father of the house of Guelph was a prince of the Alemani, who invaded the Roman empire and established their power in what is now southern Germany, and were the origin of what is now the German nation and empire. But who made this man prince? The savage tribes of Germany. So that in this line also the royal dignity of Queen Victoria springs from the people. Besides, the imperial power of Queen Victoria as she now reigns, is circumscribed, limited by the people. It has been related, and we have seen it in print, although the story may not be true, yet it will serve to illustrate the point, that on one occasion, Gladstone, while prime ministers and head of the house of Commons, took a certain paper to the Queen to be signed. She did not exactly approve of it, and said she would not sign it. Gladstone spoke of the merit of the act, but the Queen said she would not sign it. Gladstone replied that she must sign it. “Must sign it!” exclaimed the Queen, “Must sign it! Do you know who I am? I am the Queen of England.” Gladstone calmly replied, “Yes, your majesty, but I am the people of England.” And she had to sign it. The people of England can command the Queen of England. She, as Queen, is simply the representative of their power.TTL 4.3

    They are not personal sovereigns, in themselves, who are referred to in the words, “The powers that be are ordained of God.” It is the governmental power of which the sovereign is the representative, and that sovereign receives his power from the people. Outside of the theocracy of Israel, there never has been a ruler, ruling justly, whose dignity was not derived from the people, either express or permissive. It is not any particular sovereign whose power is ordained of God, nor any particular form of government. It is the genius of government itself. The absence of government is anarchy. Anarchy is only governmental confusion. But the Scriptures say, “God is not the author of confusion.” God is the God of order. He has ordained order, and he has put within man himself that idea of government, of self-protection, which is the first law of nature, which organizes itself into forms of one kind or another, wherever men dwell on the face of the earth; and it is for men themselves to say what shall be the form of government under which they shall dwell. One people has one form, another has another. This genius of civil order springs from God; its exercise in its legitimate sphere is ordained of God, and the Declaration of Independence simply asserted the eternal truth of God when it said, “Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed.” Whether it be exercised in one form of government, or another, it matters not. The governmental power and order thus ordained, is of God.TTL 4.4

    It the people choose to change their form of government, it is the same power still, is to be respected still. The power is still ordained of God in its legitimate exercise, in things pertaining to men and their relation to their fellow-men; but no power, whether exercised through one form or anther, is ordained of God, in things pertaining to God, nor has it anything whatever to do with men’s relations toward God.TTL 4.5

    We have found that the Constitution of the United States is the only form of government that has ever been on earth, that is in harmony with the principle announced by Christ, demanding of men only that which is Cesar’s, and refusing to enter in any way into the field of man’s relationship to God. This Constitution sprung from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and on this point simply asserts the truth of God. The American people do not appreciate, to the one-hundredth part, the value of the Constitution under which they live. They do not honor in any fair degree the noble men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, that these principles might be our heritage.TTL 4.6

    All honor to these noble men! All integrity to the principles of the Declaration of Independence! All allegiance to the Constitution as it now is, under which we live, which gives to Cesar all his due, and leaves men to render to God all that they, instructed by the word of God, guided by their own conscience, enlightened by the Spirit of God, may see that he requires of them. And may the sweet face of Heaven shine in infinite pity upon the poor, deluded souls who think they are doing God service in their efforts to subvert the Constitution, and men’s liberties under it, by a religious amendment. And may Heaven’s twice-blessed mercy be on and about the poor people who have respect for Jesus Christ and their right to worship God, when these “reformers” may have accomplished their purpose.TTL 4.7

    Larger font
    Smaller font