found the pains and penalties of non-conformity written in no equivocal language, and enforced with a stern and vindictive jealousy." BANCROFT ON THE CONSTITUTION. Constitution guards equality and individuality. Christ the Author of liberty in re ligion for individual. America the first na- That truth might be free, the Constitution withheld power to legislate in *ters of ience. Bancroft, in his "History of the United States," volume vi, pages 443, 444 (edition 1888), dealing with "the formation of the Constitution of the United States," says: The Constitution establishes nothing that interferes with equality and individuality. It knows nothing of differences by descent, or opinions, of favored classes, or legalized religion, or the political power of property. It leaves the individual alongside of the individual. No nationality of character could take form, except on the principle of individuality, so that the mind might be free, and every faculty have the unlimited opportunity for its development and cul ture. "The rule of individuality was extended as never before.. Religion was become avowedly the attribute of man and not of a corporation. 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 another might be overthrown in battle, never to rise again. The Peloponnesian war grew out of a strife about an oracle. Rome, as it adopted into citizenship those whom it vanquished, sometimes introduced, and with good logic for that day, the worship of their gods. No one thought of vindicating liberty of 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 for all mankind a pure, spiritual, and universal religion, enjoined to render to Cæsar only that which is Cæsar's. The rule was upheld during the infancy of this gospel for all men. No sooner was the religion of freedom adopted by the chief of the Roman empire, than it was shorn of its character of universality and enthralled by an unholy connection with the unholy state; and so it continued till the new nation the least defiled with the barren scoffings of the eighteenth century, the most sincere believer in Christianity of 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 monarch or a state. "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 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." 'the Puritan See Macaulay on "the ends of government" and Parliament," in his essays on Gladstone and Leigh Hunt. NO BILL OF RIGHTS Speaking of the United States Constitution, William E. Gladstone, the noted English statesman, said: The American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' Notwithstanding its many excellencies, it does not, however, contain, as do the State Constitutions, any formal declaration or bill of rights, except as the amendments may be called such. Not a few friends at the time of its formation, noted this deficiency, and urged that it be supplied. In a letter to James Madison, written from Paris in 1787, Thomas Jefferson, after noting the many features in it which he liked, said: "I will now add what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the laws of the nation. ... A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth." "Thomas Jefferson, His Life and Writings," by S. E. Forman (1900), page 169. In another letter, addressed to Stephens Smith, written from Paris in 1788, he further said: "I am glad to learn that the new Constitution will undoubtedly be received by a sufficiency of the States to set it a going. Were I in America, I would advocate it warmly till nine should have adopted it, and then as warmly take the other side to convince the remaining four that they ought not to come into it until the declaration of rights is annexed to it. By this means we should secure all the good of it and procure so respectable an opposition as would induce the accepting States to offer a bill of rights." Ibid., page 170. In his "Essentials in American History," page 214 (edition 1905), Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard University, says: The fight raged over the Constitution from end to end; in general, in particular, and in detail, it was hotly assailed and strongly defended. . . . The point most criticized was the lack of a bill of rights. The convention had assumed that individual rights were fundamental and could not be taken away by a federation; but the State Constitutions all had such bills of rights, and it was a mistake not to include one in the new instrument of government." Gladstone's tribute to the Constitution. Has no bill of rights. Jefferson pointed out the omission. Point most criticized lack of bill of rights. The government has not a shadow of right to intermeddle with religion. COMMENTS ON THE CONSTITUTION. VIRGINIA CONVENTION. MR. MADISON : There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular State. A particular State might concur in one religious project.1 Liberty the direct end of government. Should be guarded with jealousy. Cause of England's prosperity. MR. HENRY: Mr. Chairman. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government. . . Liberty -the greatest of all earthly blessings give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! . . Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. . We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. The great and direct end 1 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume iii, page 330. There were few objections urged so strongly against the proposed Constitution as that it did not sufficiently insure religious liberty. of government is liberty. Secure our liberty and privileges, and the end of government is answered. If this be not effectually done, government is an evil.' Without liberty government is an evil. NORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION. MR. CALDWELL thought that some danger might arise. He imagined it might be objected to in a political as well as in a religious view. In the first place, he said, there was an invitation for Jews and to all to come pagans of every kind to come among us. I think, then, added he, that, in a political view, those gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens.3 Constitution an invitation among us. MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION. REV. MR. BACKUS: Mr. President, I have said very little to this honorable convention; but I now 1 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume iii, pages 43 et seq., 53 et seq., 651. 2 Article six of the Federal Constitution, providing that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. 3 Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume iv, page 199. This speech of Mr. Caldwell shows in what light the Federal Constitution was regarded at the time of its adoption,- by its opponents as well as by its friends,- that it intended absolute equality, irrespective of religious belief or worship. This point was emphasized by the adoption of the first amendment to the Constitution. The idea that Christianity, or any other religion, was intended to be either favored or discountenanced, was entirely foreign to the intentions of the framers of our government. Such charges are the gratuitous inventions of the opponents of the absolute religious equality provided for by the Constitution-persons who desire to have their religious belief, Christianity, or its institutions, forced upon others. How different would be their tone if it was some other person's religion that was being attempted to be forced on them! 4 Rev. Mr. Isaac Backus was the author of the " History of New England" (three volumes), published 1777-1796; and, as "Appleton's Speech of the Rev. Mr. Backus. Intention of Constitution. A difference in the person. religious tests. Christianity's first usurpation. Thoughts on beg leave to offer a few thoughts upon some points in the Constitution proposed to us, and I shall begin with the exclusion of any religious test. Many appear to be much concerned about it; but nothing is more evident, both in reason and the Holy Scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and, therefore, no man or men can impose any religious test without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ministers first assumed this power under the Christian name ; and then Constantine approved of the practice, when he adopted the profession of Christianity as an engine of state policy. And let the history of all nations be searched from that day to this, and it will appear that the imposing of religious tests has been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world. And I rejoice to see so many gentlemen who are now giving in their rights of conscience in this great and important matter. Some serious minds discover a A character concern lest if all religious test should be excluded, the Congress would hereafter establish popery or some other tyrannical way of worship. But it is most certain that no such way of worship can be established without any religious test.' Effect istic Protestant argument. An earnest advocate of the tmost relig.ous freedom. Not a conflict between religion and irreligion. Wisdom manifested. Cyclopedia of American Biography" says, "Thoughout his life he was an earnest and consistent advocate of the utmost religious freedom." He was one of the many early liberal ministers who worked heart and hand with the statesmen of the times to sever for the first time in the world's history the connection which had so long existed between religion and the powers of earth. It was not a conflict between religion and irreligion, nor between Christianity and infidelity; but it was a conflict between free-churchism and state-churchism, between the liberty of the gospel and the superstition of heathenism, between human rights and the usurpations of ecclesiastics, and Dr. Backus and many other clergymen of the same stamp took the side of liberty, of humanity, and of the gospel of Christ. And upward of a century of unexampled prosperity by both the state and the church attests to the wisdom of their course. Debates on the Federal Constitution," volume ii, pages 148, 149. |