It may aid us in understanding the character and responsibilities of the State. to glance for a moment at those of the individual. The responsibility of an individual is evidently a personal matter between himself and the being to whom he owes the obligations. It is inherent in himself, and is for himself, and be can not transfer it to or share it with another. For the performance of the duties those relations impose in the family, the community, the State, and inclusive of all, duties to God, he is held individually responsible. Every man must answer in a future life for the performance of his trusts; while the State renders an account here. What the individual is, not what he seems or is reputed to be, will be the ground of proceeding in his case. But if this statement of individual character and liabilities is true, then it follows that the character and liabilities of the State are distinct from those of its individual members; for, if not distinct, then the State is punished hereafter in the persons of its subjects. In this view the State as such has a very easy time. It has, indeed, a name, but no personality, no character, no responsibilities; or, if it has these in any degree, they are entirely overlooked in the final awards of justice. The hands of justice are very soft and slippery when dealing with the State, but hold the individual with the hard clutch of a vise.

The State is an official person, ordained by God, and holds a delegated authority from Him. The principles which shape and control its acts are from Him, but the forms with which its authority is clothed are determined by its subjects. But if its person be official, its character must be official also. We must then seek the character of the State in the official principles it adopts. And where shall we look for these principles unless in the Constitution which proclaims to the world the truths from which the State is to draw its life; which defines its rights and powers; which establishes its various departments, and organizes them into one symmetrical whole? The laws and usages which spring from this constitution, as their parent, are but the exponents of its character

Men, associated under a constitution, and laws in keeping with it, form a composite person, or an associated personality, while the moral principles of that constitution form the moral character of that person, and impose upon it its obligations. The principles which the State solemnly and deliberately announces as the standard by which it is to administer justice must be accepted as the State's authoritative declaration of its own character. If in it there is no recognition of God as the author of all government, no recognition of Him as the Being to whom the State is responsible for the exercise of such dread powers, no recognition that the end and aim of all its powers are to advance righteousness among its own subjects and throughout the world, then by what right can we claim that the State even accepts these as truths, and intends they shall be taken to represent its true character? Do not the principles of the Constitution measure everywhere the obligations and accountability of the State? and will it not refuse to be charged or credited with any practice or policy not legitimately embraced in its organic laws? To say that the State recognizes God sufficiently, when the very instrument, which declares the great truths that the State receives as the guide of its life, is utterly silent as to whether there even is a God; when the laws and usages that make such recognition could be blotted out, as for any support the Constitution could give; to say this is sufficient is building a mighty structure upon an exceedingly small foundation. Any usage not inferable from its great charter can continue only by sufferance, or because no great number care to oppose it. We admit that a usage may finally have the binding force of law, and, like all other laws, become an exponent of character. This is more likely to

happen in a nation whose history covers centuries, and which is governed largely by an unwritten code. But any mere usage in a nation like ours can hardly become anchored so firmly that the surging waves will not detach it and send it drifting among the broken fragments of other wrecks. Nothing can become old where wave after wave of a population, ever renewed, sweeps past. In fact, is not the respect for these usages diminishing daily, and is there not evidence that we need more and more in the State a recognition of God's authority among us, to stand like a wall of adamant against the deep and threatening corruptions? God's great and beautiful law of marriage is rudely assailed and totters to its fall. May we never live to see the day when the people of this nation shall be trained and nurtured under the laws of easy divorce and free love. So clamors loud and deep come up on every side against that best of all days, that no law shall recognize it and sanction its observance. Blessed Sabbath! Rest for the weary! It is full of tenderness and love to man. It has sunshine all over it. And the Bible, too; man's best friend; the revealer of the life to come; the only comforter of sorrowstricken hearts; its kind voice must be hushed in our public schools. Still further: Our confidence in the power of the oath over the conscience is weakened. Even perjury-that dread crime-has its price. In a word, are not the very foundations of our national life shaken, and do we not need more even of God's official presence in every department of our State? Is not all this in some degree the result of neglect on the part of the State to acknowledge in her organic laws even the existence of the Being who gives to the oath its binding sanctions? Many have thought, and still think, that the laws and usages upon these moral questions are sufficient to characterize the State as reverential to Him. We once thought so; and had our present laws and usages proved sufficient, we would never have commenced this movement. But the opponents of Christianity have assaulted our Christian laws, because they saw there was nothing recognized in the fundamental law which would sustain them.

We were startled by the shock, but found no guns and no ammunition within. Point after point had been surrendered, and it became evident the citadel must fall. Now, we propose to yield no further the defences of our national life.

May I not ask those who think this movement unnecessary to inquire whether these evidences of the Christian character of the State are not in danger of being overthrown, and mainly because there is no Great Being recognized wh› alone can give them authority and stability? The opposers of our Christian laws and customs point triumphantly to the Constitution, and lo, it is dumb! And so our tongues can but stammer till we are able to lift that grand charter from the dust and gild it with the sheen of God's glory. When this is done, the State will then have solemnly admitted that its existence and all its just powers are from God, and that to Him it is accountable for the exercise of its high prerogatives. This official respect for the Divine Being, manifested in the laws, and in their administration, and in the obedience of all, especially of all in ruthority, will constitute the moral character of the State.

That officer who admits that government is an ordinance of God, and that the State is responsible to Him, and who administers the laws with constant reference to his accountability, has done his duty as an official. He may have false views of his own personal relations to God, but that does not vitiate his official act. If all the officers of the State are like him, of that State God would say: "Well done, good and faithful servant.” On the other hand, if they fail in all the above respects in their official duties, their personal characters, however good, will not save the State from the charge of ungodliness.

It may be asked: Has the individual character of the people no relation to that of the State? Most assuredly it has. While they are not identical, their rootlets intertwine. They both spring from the same source, but one is official while the other is personal. We cannot expect a high moral standard to be embodied in constitutions and laws unless it first exist in the hearts of their subjects. But the latter cannot be a substitute for the former. Neither do we believe the moral character of a State could long survive general corruption in the people. All that constitutes its character would exist, if at all, only in dead words and forms. Admitting all this influence of individual character upon that of the State, still it remains an essential condition, as we believe, for the perpetuity of our State that an acknowledgment be set in its very crown, and on its breastplate, that its life is in God and from God. Accompanying this, there must be personal work in the home of every one's beart. Still it must be remembered that perso

nal virtues are not the virtues of the State, and cannot be made over to its account in the day of reckoning. On the other hand it is equally true that they must exist, or the virtues of the State would soon perish.

But might not a Christian people, who ignore God in their Constitution and laws, be preserved and prospered, notwithstanding? I reply, the State, if atheistic, must perish. A reform, if in time may save it from utter extinction; but its atheism must be replaced by the highest type of theism.

We cannot say that God will not in some cases show especial favor to his people. He may open a way of escape to them while their state is engulfed in the awful storm. But so far as they constitute the personality and are responsible for the character of the State, they must suffer with others. All the social disturbance, the anarchy, the bloodshed, the tears for the dying, and wailings for the dead; all the agonies which attend the destruction of so great and strong a life, must be shared by them. We have just passed through a signal illustration of this truth. There was no blood on the lintels of the doors to turn away the destroying angel from godly houses. The good and the bad fell side by side; the circle around the hearth-stone, from which went up morning and evening a pure worship, still has its vacant seats. All these facts in our own history and in that of other nations can be explained on no other ground than the one I have attempted to sustain, viz: that its standard of right is God's character, and this it must recognize; and that it has itself a moral character official in its nature; and that this character must conform to the standard or it is justly held as forgetful of God, and must suffer the consequent pains and penalties.

We must not forget before closing to acknowledge with devout gratitude that there are evidences in the character of our State that it took its rise among a Christian people. The forms of thought and speech among such a people could hardly fail to impress themselves upon their laws and official customs. Let us hold fast to these, for they are precious footprints in our history. They show that the people were right at heart; but when they made a body politic majestic in its proportions, they forgot to put their great heart into it. Its charter contains admirable principles of human rights; but the deeper principle which gives vitality to these is wanting. Our otherwise noble Constitution has no God in it. Just where the recognition should be and must be to put our State among those that fear God, and give it a moral character, there it is not.

If that greatest of all truths, the recognition of a God and accountability to Him, headed like a mighty advanced guard the other noble and precious truths in that precious document, it would lift all the others into a higher and holier atmosphere. It would be the great sun gilding the beautiful hills and valleys of

earth with its own ineffable glory. Such a light in the Constitution, throwing its gorgeous coloring over the lesser lights, could not be disregarded. Such a truth, solemnly uttered by the greatest among States, would waken an echo in every heart. I have faith in man, and that faith compels me to feel that few nations are so low as to be able to stifle the voice of such a truth.

We do not suppose that the mere insertion of the amendment sought will of itself save this State and nation in the future. But it will be one step, and an essential one, in the cultivation of a God-fearing spirit, and in the construction of a right character. It will indeed be the crowning glory of our official character, and when supplemented by the same recognition in individual hearts, how blessed would be this nation, and how strong and beautiful a life it would live! And that life would not have its cycle of decay and dissolution, as some affirm, but would gain strength and beauty till earth has no more nations, and needs no more States.

The Rev. T. P. Stevenson, one of the editors of the CHRISTIAN STATESMAN, read the following paper on

THE LEGAL EFFECT AND PRACTICAL VALUE OF THE PROPOSED

AMENDMENT.

- There is no question which the advocates of this measure are more frequently called to answer, than this: What good will it accomplish? What will be its effect, and what is its practical value? Unless we can answer this question clearly to ourselves, we shall not labor earnestly, and we cannot labor intelligently, in the cause we have undertaken. Unless we can answer it to the satisfaction of the

christian public, we shall fail, and we shall deserve to fail. It is the more necessary to answer this question now, because there is in the public mind a feeling of satiety with constitutional changes, a weary wish to be done with agitation, and a natural impatience with those who seem to compel the discussion of difficult or unpleasant questions. I say who seem to compel, for those who advocate the Religious Amendment of our National Constitution are not the real agitators of the question which it involves. It has been forced upon us. With our christian origin and antecedents, with the religious character of our Government imperfectly developed, and with the character of the immigration which has poured upon us, this controversy is an incident in the history of American institutions which might, from the first, have been foreseen to be inevitable. Since the Constitution was framed, this measure has always been necessary; we may thank the enemies of christian morality and religion for having, in recent years, demonstrated its necessity. Those who advocate it, are simply the exponents of the christian sentiment of the nation, striving to guard the most cherished features of our institutions from the overthrow which threatens them. I shall state, as briefly as I can, the Legal Effect and Practical Value of the Constitutional Amendment which we propose.

I. It will be a becoming act of national homage to God.-Nearly all men who believe in worship at all, that is, all except Atheists, believe that God is the God of nations, and that they ought to acknowledge this relation by worshipping him. All nations, heathen and christian, have worshipped their gods. Since this nation believes in Jehovah as the God of nations, have we not a sacred and indefeasible right as a nation to worship our God? This is claimed as the inalienable right of the individual. Shall it not be conceded to the nation? This right we laim; this right we have always exercised. This right we will maintain, with

our lives, if necessary, as the highest of all rights; a right which no individual. and no minority of individuals, can limit or abridge. The right to worship God includes the right to worship him in such ways as his Word requires, or as our sense of duty or propriety may suggest. We have the right to set apart days to his honor; the right to hallow his Sabbath, and publicly to honor his Word; the right to pray to him, when we assemble for the administration of justice, or the enactment of laws; the right to inscribe this name, if we think proper, on every coin issued from our mints, on every public building, on all public documents, and on our Constitution itself.

But there are special reasons why such an acknowledgment should be made in the Constitution. According to the principles which have already been so ably vindicated on this platform, civil government is the ordinance of God. The powers it wields are derived from him. The ends it is to serve, are appointed by him. The law which it is to enforce, has been given by him. And government is completely dependent on his favor and help, for success in its work. Read the ends of government, as set forth in the Preamble to our national Constitution-" to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare." Tranquillity, safety, prosperity,—who bestows these on nations? Who turns war into peace to the ends of the earth? Whose are the shields that defend the earth? These are blessings, the bestowment of which, God claims as his own prerogative. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." When a nation, therefore, undertakes to constitute government, it is bound, alike by the dictate of reason and the sentiments of religion, to have regard to God. Men assembled to organize government have no right to take the first step in their work, without regard to him by whose authority they act, and whose ordinance they propose to set up. Failure here, is impiety. Failure here, unless repaired, provides disastrous failure for the nation. The patriot can have no reasonable hope of the success of a government set up by a nation, which forgets or despises God. fore, ought to make it plain to its own consciousness, plain to all its citizens, that in this matter, it is acting in the fear of God.

66

The nation, there

Now, how shall a nation realize this fact to its own consciousness, except by some public act or declaration? Prayer, worship, in the Convention which frames a nation's Constitution, would be valuable as a testimony? It would be truly a national act. But it might be misunderstood, as prayers in Congress sometimes are, as the personal devotions of the members of the convention. It is not an act which is brought directly to the notice, and which receives the express sanction of the whole nation. It is, moreover, a transient act. It passes away in the hour in which it is performed. History may preserve the record of the fact, but it may fail to preserve it. History, however, has preserved for us the painful fact that the convention which framed our National Constitution did actually refuse to have prayer offered during its sessions. Benjamin Franklin, in a brief, but effective speech, which is preserved in his collected writings, moved that "prayers, imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning, before we proceed to business." Dr. Franklin himself appended a note to his own manuscript, saying "The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary!"-Sparks' Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 5, p. 155.

But now suppose that the nation writes in its Constitution a distinct acknowledgment of God and of his moral laws; that is a declaration of equal dignity, authority and permanence with any other provision of the Constitution. It is