“THEY DRAW THE LINE ON GOD.”
By C. P. B.
THE Christian at Work of July 18 has an article under the foregoing head, in which it discusses the proposed preamble of the Montana State Constitution, and says that it shows “that the new State draws the line on God: and this illustrates the position of the country as a whole: it draws the line on God—on one eternal, Supreme Being, with accountability to him.” This, the Christian at Work regards as “but the prophecy of the action of other States as in years to come, they come trooping into the Union; beyond question they will all draw the line on God.” The article in question continues:— “Pennsylvania draws the line on God in a remarkable way. The Constitution of the State declares that ‘no person who acknowledges the being of a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall on account of his religious sentiment be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust in this commonwealth.’” “This immunity against disqualification,” explains the Christian at Work, “does not by its terms apply to those who deny the existence of God and rewards and punishments, but it leaves them exposed to the liability of a religious test at the will of the Legislature, and protects only those who assent to the doctrines noticed.” But it is certain that this provision protects no one. It simply leaves the entire people of the State of Pennsylvania at the mercy of the Legislature and of the Supreme Court, for, under a constitution requiring a belief in God, the Legislature must of necessity have the right to say what constitutes such belief. There are few who do not believe in some deity. For instance, the Indian reveres the great spirit, but no one will claim that he has any proper conception of the true God. The Chinaman reveres Joss, and if asked if he believes in God, would say, Yes; and so he does; but in what god? Again: there are many who imagine that they believe in God who have no correct ideas of the divine attributes. Indeed many who are called Christians have scarcely a more correct idea of God than has the Chinaman or the Indian. Ideas of God vary so much that the mere avowal of the belief in God amounts to but very little. Many people who avow a belief in the Supreme Being understand by that simply the fixed, unchanging laws of nature. And all these are now admitted to the rights of citizenship under the Constitution of Pennsylvania, but they might all be excluded under a more restricted definition of the term God. There is probably no more agreement in regard to the doctrine of future rewards and punishments required by the Constitution of Pennsylvania. We find all sorts of shades of belief from the doctrine formally held by many, of eternal torment in literal fire, to the idea of simple progression after death. The idea which now generally prevails is that, after death the good go to Heaven while the wicked are forever banished from the presence of God and to all eternity suffer the reproaches of their consciences for having done wrong. But, as a general thing, those who embrace the views of Spiritualists, believe, properly speaking, in no future rewards or punishments. They regard death as simply a change of state or condition, and they hold that men are responsible only to themselves for their actions, and that death ushers them into a state where they are capable of much greater development than is possible in this life. There, they are expected to develop and increase in knowledge and power indefinitely. There is nothing akin to rewards or punishments about it. It is no more a reward than is it a reward for a child to grow from childhood to manhood. The spirit entering the spirit life simply grows and develops, and if it enjoys more after a time, it is simply because its capacity has been enlarged. But, we will suppose that those who hold to the theory of torment in literal fire should be in the majority in Pennsylvania. They could under the Constitution disfranchise Spiritualists on the ground that they do not believe, properly speaking, in future rewards and punishments. The only thing that prevents such a condition of affairs in a State, having such a constitutional provision, is the fact that no party is sufficiently strong to enforce that part of the Constitution. It is a dead letter simply from the inability of anybody to carry it out. And is not at all likely ever will be carried out, but it serves to illustrate the evils of such constitutional provisions. Again: if it is right and proper that Christians, because in the majority, should require all to subscribe to a certain belief, it must be right for infidels or heathen, were they in the majority, to require that all subscribe to their ideas, all of which serves to show that governments can, of right, have nothing whatever to do with matters of faith or religion, but that those things must be left to538the individual, with the government simply forbidding acts that are uncivil, that is, acts that interfere with the person, property or character of others. Thus far civil government must go, but it can go no farther without trespassing its God-appointed bounds. C. P. B.