The Committee on Permanent Organization made the following report, which was unanimously approved:

For President of the Convention, the Hon. M. B. HAGANS, Judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

Vice Presidents: The Rev. B. P. Aydelott, D.D, Prof. O. N. Stoddard, the Rev. R. Audley Browne, D D., the Rev. A. D. Mayo, D. D., the Rev. J. R. W. Sloane, D. D., the Rev. E. Morris, D. D., David Boyd, Esq., the Rev. J. B. Helwig, the Rev. A. Ritchie.

Secretary: The Rev. H. H. George.

On taking the chair, Judge Hagans addressed the Convention as follows:

Gentlemen of the Convention:

To return you my sincere thanks for this mark of your confidence and favor feebly expresses my profound sense of the distinguished honor you have conferred in calling me to preside over the deliberations of this National Convention. In assuming this responsibility I am conscious of my want of experience. I am led, therefore, to ask your charitable judgment beforehand of any failure of parliamentary administration, as well to express the hope that you will lend your aid in the discharge of the important duties de-volved upon me.

I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, that we are met together to consult peacefully upon questions of so much moment, with respect to no party, creed, nationality, or race, and at a time when no clamor of war or internal dissension will disturb the coolness of our deliberations. Our motives will not be assailed; they may be misjudged and misrepresented. I may declare that we do not yield to our opponents in our patriotism or our devotion to the best interests of the republic. I think I may therefore welcome you to the great State of Ohio, which bears on her escutcheon, with no invidious pride, the motto, "Imperium in Imperio." In the recognition of inter-State comity and her obligations in the sisterhood of Commonwealths, she greets every son of the republic who enters upon her broad domain. I congratulate you that we are here in the heart of our own great country, where we may feel its throbs, and where the influence of the movement in whose interest we are met may be sent thrilling along the currents of the national life to the farthest verge of our land.

The prominence which has been given to the objects of this convention by the agitation of the public mind upon the grave questions we are met together to consider and discuss has attracted the thoughtful attention of the whole country, as involving no less momentous interests than other political problems of the day. It is not exceptional in a country like ours, where every man has opinions and is entitled to express them, that these objects should be encountered by the studied indifference of many, the sneers even of a few good men, the vituperation of some, and the misrepresentation of others. These are the common strategies of political warfare, and we must expect them and meet them with superior logic. The peaceful agitation of these questions can not but result in the public good. Where the government is the manifestation of the aggregate sentiment of the people, we must needs have the better arguments, and commend our object to the considerate judgment of the nation by the preponderance of the reason. I firmly believe the vast majority of the people of the United States approve the scope and end of the purpose of this movement. The public

conscience perceives that it involves nothing less than the moral elevation of the body politic as well as its members, and the direction and moulding of the ends of the nation itself. An explicit acknowledgment of God in the fundamental has the author of our national existence and the source of its authority, is but the recognition on the part of the State of an obligation as binding upon the mal conscience as upon that of its individual members.

nations and each nation is of God. The State is not only an organism, sspeak-even Hobbes arguing against its organic being, yet represented it asa olossal, living man-but it is a sovereign, conscious, moral personality--not escent or temporary, but formed for endurance through all time.

It is re

ble for its conduct not to itself, but to the universal conscience of manin and to God. It is needless to speculate about the personality we call the son, as defined in the conceptions of men, but we are to regard it as one of be most imposing facts belonging to our race. It does not accord with the logic of history or the philosophy of our being, or the facts of experience, to say that The State is a social or economic compact, or that it is founded on the will of the people, and has therefore no relation to God. The nation does not live in itself or for itself. It has its foundations in man's nature, and existed before constitutions and prior to laws. It is not, therefore, a compact nor does it exist by the will of the people. These rather express the manifestations of its being. Its history is not merely a succession of separate actions and events, as an apparent sequence of its organism, but it is the continuity of a moral order in the world, and the development of a progress toward the universal triumph of what is good. Its life does not consist of a body of enactments, but in the limitation of its being in a moral personality. This is the condition of the freedom of the whole and all its parts. It is the true foundation of its movement toward "the better time a coming," which all the philosophers wait for and expect. It strives for a growth into the perfect humanity of its members; and only as it so strives does it compass that which is enduring in politics, or which gives it a triumphant advocacy at the bar of the universal conscience, and the approving verdict of history. It never was instituted for the lower wants of its individual members. It is rather a partner in all ennobling art, every science, all literature, every virtue, and all perfection. It needs, therefore, to regulate the relations of its members as moral personalities, and to assert justice, which is only the recognition of the relations among the moral personalities of its members, and between them and its own moral personality. And in doing this, it derives all its sanctions of administration from morality and religion. When these exercise their legitimate sway, it needs no police, and no standing armies. It recognizes the fact that the nation is not only the mart of trade and commerce, but the theater of its internal life, as well as of the moral actions, thoughts and endeavors of its constituents to be regulated by the laws of its being. It thus becomes the acceptable minister of God in history. There is, therefore, the necessity of education in the growth and formation of a true character in each of its members; for the complexion of its outward manifestation, as well as the texture of its inner life, depend upon the character of the people as a whole.

And, therefore, also, the necessity for a careful discouragement or prohibition of all that tends to corrupt the public or private morals, or to interrupt the healthy current of the national life to its meanest and most exposed member. There is no such thing as the isolation of a single member of the State. There is necessarily the existence of moral relation between the members themselves, and between them and the State. For the faithful performance toward each other of

their respective duties, and the recognition of their respective obligations, they are each responsible to God. For, without a moral personality, there can be no accountability. The State can sin; and it can reap the harvest of its violation of conscience in the corruption of its citizens, the decadence of its strength, and the final overthrow of its power.

The

We

The State is not a historical accident, nor a necessary evil, but rather an external circumstance of its being, and a consequence of evil, in so far as it is necessary to impose restraints upon the inculcation to wrong-doing. Its substance is good; and its manifestations in the perceptions of right and the enforcements of justice argue the divinity of its origin. It has a distinct rational and moral end, because God constituted men rational and moral beings. inherent nature of each corresponds to the inherent nature of the other. can not now help treating politics in an ethical view. This is confirmed by universal experience. No declaration of war. at least in modern times, has been made without founding it on an appearance of justice. Charles IX. added to the horrors of St. Bartholomew the transparent falsehood that he had in view his own safety from a conspiracy of the Huguenots. The great Frederic apologized for his part in the partition of Poland. Philip II. prosecuted his wars against the heroic Netherlands, as well as his perfidious designs against England, in the name and for the glory of God. England, in her turn, sought a justification in the eyes of the world, for thrusting the monstrous opium traffic on the Chinese. The rebellion entrenched itself behind an appeal to mankind for the justice of its cause. It is not needful to illustrate the argument by other

modern instances.

In passing, I may not say more, especially now, on the subject of education in the public schools at the common expense, than that the effort to make these schools unsectarian, by banishing the Bible and all religious instruction from them, is nothing more than by express legal enactment or judicial construction to put them into the hands of sectarians which, in the prohibitory clauses on this subject in the Constitutions of most of the States, are denominated other sects." You cannot make the schools unsectarian by banishing religious instruction from them. The very objection to them on the ground that they are now sectarian, is itself sectarian, because it is in consonance with the views of one class and opposed to those of another. Inasmuch as "religion, morality, and knowledge are essential to good government," it is not perceived how the State can divest itself of its obligation to see to the formation and growth of a true character in its citizens. The political value of religion to the State is the enduring element of its structure, the corner-stone of its prosperity, and the guarantee of reaching the ultimate goal of history.

But it is said, we admit all of this, and perhaps much more, but still we cannot see the necessity of a politico-religious amendment to the Constitution of the United States such as you propose. No longer ago than last Sabbath, a minister of one of our orthodox churches, in this city, whom I not only highly esteem, but cherish with all brotherly love, in announcing to his congregation the sessions of this Convention, and extending an invitation to all to attend them, stated, I understand, that the gentlemen composing this convention were a very amiable set, and if they did no good they would, at least, do no harm. It would have been in better taste, in my judgment, to have omitted the announcement altogether.

Yet some of these gentlemen are horrified at the effort to exclude the Bible from the public schools; and others declaim long and loud against the prevail

ing vices of the day, especially intemperance and the desecration of the Sabbath. They clamor for legislation on these subjects, or that the legislation already existing shall be more strictly enforced. And they are not without reason. They base their demands not alone on religious grounds, but mostly on political and moral considerations. They seem to forget that back of these laws there is not a robust moral sentiment that demands their enforcement in tones loud enough for the Executive ear: and, therefore, the laws are ignored with impunity. They talk about educating the popular conscience up to their standard, which is all well enough. But they overlook or belittle the omission in the basal law, of one of the highest arguments and a bit of the most powerful logic. They are promptly met by one of the arguments we use for the necessity of this movement. They are told that the State is a compact, an inherent sovereign, or the will of the people concentrated in a focus which we call government, so that the will of the people, or the sovereignty, or the compact may say with Louis XIV., "I am the State," and if they can be outvoted their opponents hold that the matter ends there; and their almost perfect chain of · political and moral considerations, forged from the nature and functions of the State, lacks but a single link in its golden completeness. We have no higher obligations, say their antagonists, and recognize no greater responsibility. The State has no relations to God, for the Constitution we have made omits even the mention of any supremer sovereignty than itself, and we can see none. I am not now passing upon the soundness of the argument. It is a difficult task, in the presence of such a conflict, and in the absence of explicit declaration, to oppose to the "perilous edge" of these statements, the practices and opinions of our fathers, and to cite them in legislation; for the scope and effect of the one is disputed, and the constitutionality of the other questioned and denied. Thus the State, recognizing no other or higher sovereignty than itself in its fundamental law, falls short, in this instance, of one of its greatest purposes-the education of the citizens in the formation and growth of moral character. It does not explicitly set God before all eyes, and above all governments, and over all sovereignties as the absolute and only Ruler and Lord. Hence the caviling and debate. It is not at all illogical that here are found those who are ready to strike in blindness at the pillars of the temple of the nation, and bedraggle the nation's garments in the slough of our fallen nature. Nor is it surprisingly illogical that vice and dishonesty stalk abroad in the open day, rearing their heads, asserting their dominion and intrenching themselves in the high places of the nation and flaunt their hateful liveries in the faces of the people. It is not to be wondered at that their influence should trickle down, down, to the very foundations of the national fabric, and that their example should be defended with weapons drawn from the sacred armory of the Constitution itself. The temple which the nation has built for itself does not blaze with the glory of the Ineffable Presence; the garments with which it has clothed itself, made with its own fingers, shimmer not with the halo of its divine origin as it goes in and out before the people. And so the process may thus go on in an unbroken circle, casting and reflecting the influence of the State upon the people, and of the people back again upon the State, each successive step in the progress of decadence distinctly marked, until the moral relations between the whole and its parts, and between the parts themselves, become dissevered; and while we gaze at the spectacle of our own helplessness, the nation and its temple may be involved in a common ruin.

It is not needful that I should speak of the method by which we hope to attain

our end or draw attention to other arguments and considerations. They, as well as those I have crudely and imperfectly stated, will be more ably presented by others during the sessions of the convention. I may say, however, that the agitation of these questions, from their very nature, will never be ended until they are rightly settled. The people may be misled temporarily. Even some good men may be deceived by the cries of "the violation of conscience," and "the union of church and state." But these are so manifestly foreign to our purpose that they can alarm no one except the "amiable gentlemen" who seriously give ear to them. We can safely trust the conscience of the masses of men to pronounce an ultimately just judgment upon the value and necessity of any political question involving, as it does, the moral well being of the State. For we have learned from our own history that in the long run the people are right.

The following letters were read from officers of the National Association and other gentlemen who were unable to be present.

FROM THE HON. WM. STRONG, U. S. SUPREME COURT, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11, 1871.

REV. D. MCALLISTER-Dear Sir :—I have delayed replying to your note with a view of ascertaining definitely, what arrangements our court might make respecting its winter recess. It has now been settled that our recess will be only two weeks, and will terminate on the 6th of January. It will, therefore, be impossible for me to attend the coming Cincinnati Convention.

This I regret for many reasons. I should greatly enjoy the associations of the convention, and derive benefit from its influences. Manifestly the movement to secure the recognition of God as over all in our fundamental law is making more and more an impression upon the public mind. Even the misrepresentations of the purposes of its friends, and the violence of the opposition it encounters, attest its progress. I rejoice at the prospect there is of a good and effective meeting, and I trust your anticipations will not be disappointed. Very truly and respectfully, W. STRONG.

FROM THE REV. A. A. MINER, D. D., PRESIDENT OF TUFT'S COLLEGE, MASSA

CHUSETTS.

BOSTON, Nov. 27, 1871.

REV. D. MCALLISTER-Dear Sir:-The state of my health and the number of my labors and cares at home, will not permit me to attend the approaching convention at Cincinnati. I regret this the more as I feel that the faith of the nation needs anchorage, and I should be glad to do anything in my power to help it find it.

Yours, truly, A. A. MINER.

FROM HIS EXCELLENCY, SETH PAdelford, GovernOR OF RHODE ISLAND.
PROVIDENCE, Jan. 27, 1872.

REV. D. MCALLISTER-My Dear Sir :-Yours of the 17th is on hand. It would afford me great pleasure to attend your meeting to be held on the 31st inst., if my engagement permitted. The Legislature of the State is now in session, which calls for my presence here.

FROM PROFESSOR JULIUS H. SEELYE.

Yours, truly, Seth Padelford.

AMHERST COLLEGE, Nov. 21, 1871. REV. D. MCALLISTER-Dear Sir:-Yours of the 14th inst. is received, and I regret that it is impossible for me to agree to be present at the convention of which you speak, owing to my other engagements for that time.

Notwithstanding the indifference of many and the hostility of some, from whom better things might have been expected, it seems to me that the movement towards the religious amendment to our Constitution grows in volume and strength. May God bless it with His guidance and inspiration! Very truly yours,

J. H. SEELYE.