The Pittsburg Convention and Organic Religion.
[We call attention to the following valuable article from the N. Y. Independent, of March 17, 1870. It is a candid review of the movement now in progress for the virtual union of church and state. J. N. A.] The fathers who framed the Constitution of the United States, wisely dissevered it, and the government created by it, from all organic connection with the religion of the people. They contented themselves with simply declaring that “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The melancholy history of the past had instructed them, as it ought to instruct all, that the absolute severance of the state from all organic connection with religion, is the only ground of safety to the civil and religious liberty of the people. Though not atheists, they had the wisdom to frame a government whose fundamental law left religion to the inalienable rights of the individual conscience, and made all religious prescription or persecution constitutionally impossible. The resolutions of the late Pittsburg Convention proceed upon a very different theory in the construction of civil government. We ask the attention of our readers to the fourth one of the series: “Resolved, That, in order to maintain and give permanency to the Christian features which have marked this nation from its origin, it is necessary to give them authoritative sanction in our organic law.” This more than surprises us. Do the members of this convention really mean what they say? Does Judge Strong, of Pennsylvania, design to place himself on this ground? Or was the resolution hastily adopted, without due reflection? If we understand the import of their words, these gentlemen propose that Christianity shall be authoritatively incorporated into the “organic law” of this country; and this is just the principle of all the religious despotisms which have cursed mankind and corrupted religion in centuries past. It is in kind the very doctrine adopted by the Pope of Rome and all his cardinals. These “Christian features,” referred to by the convention, are simply the religious beliefs and practices of that portion of the American people known as Christians. They can be nothing else. They certainly are not the “features” of infidels or Jews. Now, observe that these beliefs and practices are, according to the theory of the convention, to be maintained and made permanent. In what way? Not by preaching Christianity as Christ and the apostles did; not by the circulation of tracts, and the distribution of the Bible among the people; not by the influence of holy lives and individual conversions to the truth; but by giving “them authoritative sanction in our organic law.” This means, if it means anything, that Christianity, as somebody understands it, is to be incorporated into the structure of the National Government and become an integral part of the Constitution. An “authoritative sanction in our organic law” can mean nothing less. Now, we take the liberty of saying, that no such method, as the one proposed, is at all necessary, “to maintain and give permanency to the Christian features which have marked this nation from its origin.” Ever since the organization of this government, now nearly one hundred years ago, Christianity has lived and prospered in this country without “any authoritative sanction in our organic law;” and we see no reason for supposing that it cannot continue to do so for all time. It asks no such service at the hands of the state; and, moreover, the history of all such experiments shows that the state cannot extend the service without doing more harm than good. We hence believe that in this respect the framers of the Constitution were much wiser than the members of the recent Pittsburg Convention. The thing is just right as it is—right for the government, right for religion, and right for the free and untrammeled exercise of human liberty; and, as we have no doubt, the large majority of the American people are of the opinion that it is best to keep it right. We are in favor of reforms; but not those that go backward, and lead toward the despotisms of the dark ages. The doctrine of these gentlemen is impracticable in this country, and wholly undesired, even if it were practicable; and we hence advise them to apply their efforts and resources to some more legitimate object. The proposition itself, upon its very face, supplies its own answer when presented to the American mind. We are opposed to the whole idea from beginning to end, in every possible form and stage of its application.