TO THE PUBLIC.-These articles being a review of a book published by Rev. W. A. Scott, D. D., entitled "The Bible and Politics," originally appeared in the Pacific, under the signature of "Layman." The authorship having become generally known, at the request of several persons, the publication of them in pamphlet form, with my own signature, has been assented to. They are but slightly altered in this re-publication. Some expressions have been omitted, and some explanatory notes added. F. M. HAIGHT.

CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW

O F

DR. SCOTT'S BIBLE AND POLITICS.

I propose to review, as briefly as the nature of the subject will admit, the recent publication of the Rev. W. A. Scott, D. D., entitled "The Bible and Politics." The title of the book does not indicate, with any precision, the great principles discussed. The occasion of the publication seems to have been certain newspaper strictures on a sermon, or rather the notes of a discourse published in the Times, and I infer, with his consent, and from notes furnished or corrected by himself. That he had the undoubted right to preach, print and publish said discourse, no one can deny; of the expediency of the thing, there may be differences of opinion. It is certainly true, also, that the tone and character of the strictures upon this discourse, as published in the work before us, are wholly unbecoming any respectable paper. The writer of this does not recollect to have seen them, and if he had, would not be likely to read or remember them. They could not do any injury to the Rev. gentleman, for his zeal, earnestness, ability and piety, are on a foundation too strong to be shaken by newspaper abuse. For I assume that the venom of such paragraphs is so apparent, that they are more injurious to the author and publisher, than the individual attacked. Every man, however, has the right, in this country, to speak, write and publish what he pleases, being responsible for the abuse of this liberty. The book, as a matter of self-defense, was unnecessary, and personal controversies of religious teachers will rarely advance the cause of their Master. If, however, it was deemed necessary for the edification of the people to discuss the subject of the book, then it is appropriate, and perhaps well timed. Premising, however, that with the greatest respect and esteem I have for the author, I could have wished he had deemed it consistent with duty to have omitted this publication, or have confined it to the expediency of introducing the Bible into the Public Schools, as well because it was unnecessary, as because the advocacy of the principles contained in the book is necessarily at variance with opinions entertained by a large portion of the religious public, and makes the author the inevitable ally of those whose opinions are antagonistic to all religion. I propose to review the principles advanced in the sermon in the Times, and in this elaborate publication, as I understand them. The work is somewhat diffuse, but I understand it to be the object of the book to maintain—

1. That there is no constitutional power in the Legislature to appoint a chaplain to preach or pray for them.

2. That under our system there is no constitutional power in the Legislature to pass laws for the observance of the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.

3. That the selection of the Bible as a school book would be an illegal and unconstitutional exercise of power; and as a corrollary from all these instances that any legislation tending to advance Christian morality, is opposed to "equal, absolute religious freedom." I do not propose to discuss the expediency of this kind of legislation. I have not read the discourses reviewed by Dr. Scott, of the Rev. Drs. Cheever, Anderson and Peck, and I have no desire to place myself in the attitude of a champion of any body or any particular party or sect, but against what I deem "radicalism run mad;" if such it shall prove to be, the writer will also present, in imitation of the author of this book, his "humble plea."

I do not intend saying anything objectionable to the author of the book I am reviewing, or anything which may tend to impeach his great merits and great usefulness as a didactic and exhortatory preacher, for I believe, in these respects, he has no equal in this State, and few superiors anywhere. His usefulness here has been great, and will continue to be, as I hope and believe; but writing currente calamo, amid the pressure of occupations foreign to this discussion, and with no time to copy and carefully and thoughtfully revise, it is possible that my language may sometimes be offensively strong, and if so, I can only say it would be more painful to me than to any one aggrieved, to have it supposed that I had passed the bounds of fair argument and just criticism, to inflict pain on any person.

The book of Dr. Scott makes some statements of a general nature which are important. One reason assigned for the publication is, that he could not refer to any book that presented his side of the case as he thought it ought to be presented. He says on page 15 : "All the tracts and books I have met with on this subject, are in favor of the views that I am opposing, or altogether defective in presenting fairly what I conceive to be the true issues on this question." That books have been written, and speeches made on this side of the question, by men of great ability, is true, but they were by irreligious men, and at least one instance I recollect, by an honest infidel, not a man who was a railer at Christianity, but one sincere in his views, and upright and pure in private life. That, however, no professed believer in Christianity has printed or published the views contained in this book, if, as I think such is the fact, should certainly teach modesty and caution, both in author and reader, before adopting them.

It is also said in the advertisement, that "for some years, and particularly of late, our country has been agitated about Sunday Laws, Chaplains, and the Bible in the national schools." On page 21, is said, that in the earlier history of our country there was less difficulty by reason of an uniformity of faith. These things are true as to the past, the controversy is comparatively of recent origin; and it is equally true that in our earlier history there was less difference than now in the number of sects and their dogmatic theology; the statement is denied. There were as many sects in our earlier history as there are now; some have gained more and some less. But what is the more controlling reason, is, that in our earlier history there was more deference to and faith in religion, in all sects. The roots of bitterness have but feeble growth in the genuine soil of piety. These controversies have arisen much more from the absence of all religion than from any well founded constitutional scruples as to these matters. Take, first, the Chaplain

controversy. No objection was ever made in any Legislature that I ever heard of, to having a Chaplain to open their sessions with prayer, except by those who disbelieved all religion, and, of course, all praying. This controversy, it has been truly said, is of comparatively recent origin. In our earlier history, from the Declaration of Independence to within the last twenty-five or thirty years, it was deemed right "to acknowledge God in all our ways." As to the Constitution of the United States having anything to do with this question it is a mere assumption. There is nothing in it as to this matter, and in the nature of the compact could not be; but of this hereafter.

66

Before discussing the principles, let us look to the practice of the Fathers of the Republic in its earlier history. It will probably be conceded that George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Roger Sherman, Daniel Carroll, Robert Morris, Fisher Ames, Elbridge Gerry, T. T. Tucker, R. B. Lee, Theodorick Bland, and many others, both of the Senate and House of Representatives, when they met in the first Congress in 1789, shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, and were then putting the Government in motion, had about as correct notions of constitutional power as most of our modern Solons, whether found in the pulpit or the Senate. Many of these persons could say, in reference to the Constitution, quorum pars magna fui." George Washington was President and John Adams Vice President of the United States, and the other persons named, with others equally illustrious, were members of the Senate and House of Representatives. On the 25th of April, 1789, the Right Reverend Samuel Provost was elected Chaplain to the Senate. On the 30th April succeeding, Gen. Washington delivered his inaugural address, and, thereupon, the President, Vice President, the members of the Senate and House of Representatives proceeded to St. Paul's Chapel, where Divine service was performed by the Chaplain of the Senate; after which, the President returned to his house and the Senate to their chamber. This all appears on the journal of the Senate. (See Benton's Abridgment of Debates of Congress, vol. 1, pp. 11 and 12.) This was the way they started at the first ses sion of the first Congress, and on looking at the names of the members who were the committee of arrangements in reference to the inauguration, there will be found as great diversity of sects as in any modern Legislature. There will be found the Puritan, Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, and Daniel Carroll, a Catholic, from Maryland, uniting in devout and reverential supplication with the Chaplain, Prevost, an Episcopalian Bishop; and these good and great men do not seem to have had any suspicion they were violating the rights of conscience, much less doing anything contrary to the Constitution of the United States, or the genius of republican liberty.

On the 27th April, 1789, the House of Representatives resolved to appoint a chaplain, and appointed the Friday succeeding for the election. On the day appointed, William Lynn was duly elected. (See Annals of Congress, vol. 1, page 207.) This election of chaplain was in pursuance of resolution of a joint committee of conference in reference to the organization of the Government. The proposition did not meet with any objection, or elicit any debate, so far as we can ascertain, in the Senate or House. The Senate sat with closed doors until 1794, and their debates are not preserved; but the debates of the House are preserved, and no one is found raising any objection to the appointment of chaplains. There was no debate on

the subject. No one seemed to suppose that it was a debatable matter. Here I cannot pass over, though not strictly applicable to the point I am considering, but germain to the general subject, some extracts from the inaugural of Gen. Washington, and the reply of the Senate thereto. Gen. Washington concludes his inaugural with the following paragraph:

"Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the human race, in humble supplication, that since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of the Union, and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures, on which the success of this government must depend."

On Thursday, the 7th of May following, the Committee appointed on the part of the Senate to prepare an answer to the speech of the President, reported an address which was subsequently adopted and delivered, and from which I extract the following paragraphs :

"When we contemplate the coincidence of circumstances, and wonderful combination of causes, which gradually prepared the people of this country for independence : when we contemplate the rise, progress and termination of the late war, which gave them a name among the nations of the earth: we are, with you, unavoidably led to aeknowledge and adore the great arbiter of the universe, by whom empires rise and fall. A review of the many signal instances of Divine interposition in favor of this country, claims our most pious gratitude

"We feel, sir, the force, and acknowledge the justness of the observation, that the foundation of our national policy should be laid in private morality."

The Committee was composed of Messrs. Johnson, Patterson and Carroll.

Mr. Madison, of the House, reported their address, which was unanimously adopted, and the following is the concluding paragraph:

"All that remains is, that we join in your fervent supplications for the blessings of heaven on our country; and that we add our own for the dearest of these blessings on the most beloved of her citizens."

The practice thus inaugurated of electing chaplains was continued at every session, and so far as I have examined, without objection, so long as the Fathers of the Republic and the framers of its Constitution controlled its destinies. The same is true of the proceedings of the State Legislatures in the early history of the Republic. It was not then supposed that the voice of prayer or the song of praise could be offensive to legislative ears. So much for precedent; and the facts of history do not need any references. We suppose it to be conceded that the controversy is of recent origin, and it may be true that we, in our day and generation, are wiser than our fathers; but as the question is one of constitutional construction, and one of course where the intention of the framers is the great point sought, it seemed proper to refer to the construction unanimously placed upon it by those contemporary with and having aided in its formation.

The Constitution of the United States has no bearing upon the question as to the legislative power of the State over subjects of this nature. There is no grant of power to Congress in regard to the matter. The Constitution of the United States is a grant of certain powers for the general good, and such implied powers

as are necessary to carry into execution those expressly granted. The Federal Government has no original sovereignty. It is a creature of compact, agreed upon by the people of the United States, or the States, and which is a vexed question not necessary to this discussion. The powers of the Federal Government are defined in the Constitution. Congress cannot legislate upon any subject not embraced within the power granted. Article 6, section 3, quoted by the author, is as follows: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, but no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust in the United States."

Amendments to the Constitution, Article 1, is the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

These two provisions imply, says Dr. Scott, that people " may worship as many Gods as they please, and worship anything as God they may choose, or worship no God at all." See page 41 of the book. Now with all due respect, what is an oath or affirmation? It certainly has some relation to religion and futurity, otherwise it is a farce. It avows a belief in some God of some kind. The very terms oath and affirmation, in a legal as well as a common sense view, import an appeal to a divinity of some kind or other. Bouvier in his law dictionary says: "oath is a declaration made according to law before a competent tribunal or officer to tell the truth; or it is the one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God, not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words, to punish his perjury if he should be guilty of it." As usual with this author, numerous authorities are cited to maintain the definition. In Paley's Moral Philosophy, cited in Richardson's Dictionary, and adopted in defining the word oath, it is said: “but whatever may be the form of the oath the signification is the same. It is calling on God to witness, i. e., to take notice of what we say, and it is invoking his vengeance or renouncing his favor, if what we say be false, or what we promise be not performed." Paley's Moral Philosophy, b. iii., ch. 16. It is to be remarked that my reverend friend only quotes the concluding paragraph of the article requiring the oath, which I have inserted at length. This article provides that all officers shall take an oath or affirmation, but no religious test shall be required. Now the true meaning and intention of this article, is simply that the kind of religious belief or mode of worship of the person should not be an exclusion from office. At this time Catholics and non-conformists were excluded in England because they could not conscientiously take the oath prescribed; and while not excluding any sect, the provision in the Constitution necessarily implies a belief in God. In Phillips' Evidence, page 8, "an examination upon oath implies that a witness should go through a ceremony of particular import, and also, that he should acknowledge the efficacy of that ceremony as an obligation to speak the truth. By taking an oath, a witness makes a formal and solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of the evidence he is about to give, and imprecates he Divine vengeance on his head, if what he shall say should be false." In rela