VI."HOW."

The subject treated under this title, "How," is an address delivered in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle on Sunday, May 31, 1903, in one of the sessions of the Young Men's and Young Ladies' Mutual Improvement Associations Annual Conferences. The associations are auxiliary organizations in the Church of the Latter-day Saints for the improvement of the youth. In May of the above year, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church was appointed to convene in Los Angeles. A large number of ministers of this persuasion from eastern states made it a point to pass through Salt Lake Cityen routefor Los Angeles, and the Ministerial Association of Utah, an organization comprised of Protestant ministers of all the Evangelical Churches in the State, made it their business to call the attention of such visiting ministers to the "Mormon Question," and invited their co-operation against the Mormon Church. As preliminary to this action on their part they published two pamphlets, one under the title, "Claims of Mormons to be Considered Seriously." This pamphlet pretended to give a brief history of the origin of the Mormon Church, and declared that the Prophet Joseph Smith was considered by his neighbors to be a character who was "low, unworthy, of bad repute in general, and that he was especially unworthy of confidence." It was a re-hash of the silly stories that sprang up in western New York and that are utterly unreliable, and which, while the Prophet lived in New York, could never be established against him, though every possible effort to do so was made.

The second pamphlet was entitled "Temple Mormonism." The chief purpose of this pamphlet was evidently to prove that Mormonism was an oath-bound secret organization, "for the encouragement and protection of polygamous living." These pamphlets were distributed to the one thousand Presbyterian ministers who are said to have passed through Salt Lake at that time. It was the intention also to have them presented to the Presbyterian Assembly in Los Angeles, and I believe they were so presented. Later they were to be presented to the Baptist Convention to be held that year in Buffalo, New York; also to the Congregational Conference at Portland, Oregon, and then to the W. C. T. U., to the Y. M. C. A. and W. C. A. conventions of that year; and finally to the Inter-Denominational Association of Women. Whatever became of the presentation of these pamphlets to the respective organizations other than the Presbyterian Assembly, I do not know; but their presentation to the gathered Presbyterian ministers at Los Angels doubtless had the desired effect, for it resulted in some very heated speeches upon the subject of Mormonism, more especially in one delivered by Dr. Charles L. Thompson of New York, secretary of the Assembly, who, in the course of a speech widely heralded through the secular press of the country, said—and this was the report of the speech according to the dispatches—of Mormonism:

"It is not to be educated, not to be civilized, not to be reformed—it must be crushed. No other organization is so perfect as the Mormon Church except the German Army. This describes Mormonism. Its empty promises deceive. Relentlessly it fastens its victims in its loathsome glue. It has one vulnerable point. It is not to be reformed. It is to be crushed. Dr. Richard L. Ely has declared that there is nothing comparable to its system except the German Army. * * * * Beware the Octopus. There is one moment in which to seize it, says Victor Hugo. It is when it thrusts forth its head. It has done it. Its high priest claims a senator's chair in Washington. Now is the time to strike. Perhaps to miss it now is to be lost."

Commenting on this speech, the dispatches said:

"No speaker who has thus far appeared before the Presbyterian General Assembly has aroused so much enthusiasm as Dr. Chas. L. Thompson. His references to Mormonism were especially bitter, and brought out great applause from his audience."

It is this speech that is commented upon in the remarks which follow.

My Brethren and Sisters—I arise this afternoon to announce a great disappointment. By reference to your printed programs you will see that President Joseph F. Smith was chosen to make an address this afternoon, but he insists upon my taking his place. I tried to dissuade him from making the change, but he insisted upon it, and as he has the final word in such matters, I respond cheerfully to his request, and ask you, as soon as possible, to banish the remembrance of your disappointment and assist me by your faith and prayers, that what I may say may be fitting to this occasion, and prompted by the Spirit of the Lord.

I think I shall venture to take a text, but not from the Bible. My text will be one that I have made "out of my own head." Perhaps that will account for its being so brief. It consists of one word only, and that one word is, "How?"

Away back in 1832, on the occasion of a number of elders being assembled in Kirtland, desiring to know the will of the Lord concerning themselves, and in what manner they should spend their time pending the commencement of a conference which had been called, the Lord said through his Prophet:

"I give unto you a commandment, that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom; teach ye diligently, and my grace shall attend you, that ye may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land, and a knowledge also of countries and kingdoms, that ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you."[A]

[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 88: 77-81.]

From this you will observe that the elders of the Church were commanded to enter a very extensive field in search of knowledge. Indeed, I cannot think of anything pertaining to things that lie within the scope or power of man's investigation that is not included within this commandment to search for knowledge. Among other things, you will observe that the elders are to make themselves acquainted with "things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; with things which are at home, and things which are abroad." I see in that a commandment to keep informed as to current events; and, in my opinion, this commandment can be made to apply not only to the elders in Ohio, to whom it was directly given, but to all those who may be called upon to perform a similar labor, that of representing the work of God to the inhabitants of the earth. That responsibility rests upon the young men who hold the priesthood in the Church today, and hence, this commandment applies to them. It applies to the members of the Mutual Improvement Associations; for one of the chief objects in view, when the organization of Improvement Associations was effected, was the preparation of our young men to become exponents of the gospel of Jesus Christ, especially as revealed in the dispensation of that gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith. No knowledge can be of more importance to the young man who expects to engage in this work than the knowledge of current events, and prevailing ideas in the world on religion; especially those current events which have a more or less direct relation to the great work of the last days—to Mormonism, in other words.

Of late, there have been a number of important things taking place that have a direct relation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, among which is the passing of resolutions antagonistic to Mormonism, by the Presbyterian General Assembly, convened during the past week in Los Angeles, California. The ministers of the Presbyterian Church met in solemn conclave to consider the interests of their own church, and, incidentally, I suppose, to look a little after the welfare of ours. One proposition before those assembled divines was very extraordinary. So extraordinary, in fact, that it may be considered astonishing. It was nothing more nor less than a plan to "crush Mormonism." I think we are interested in a proposition of that kind. Intensely interested; and hence my text of one word, "How?" That is, how is the "Crushing of Mormonism" to be effected? What means are to be invoked? What process followed? Fortunately for us, who naturally have so much anxiety respecting the matter, one of the speakers before the Presbyterian assembly brought forward a plan through which the "crushing" is to be accomplished. This was Doctor-that is, Doctor of Divinity, you will understand—Charles L. Thompson, of New York. We are informed by the dispatches which reported in part "his great discourse," that he was the speaker who aroused the most enthusiasm in the assembly, and that his references to Mormonism were "especially bitter," and brought out great applause from his audience. He is reported to have said that "Mormonism is not to be educated, not to be civilized, not to be reformed. It must be crushed." This the climax of what is called his "great discourse;" surely it must have been a great discourse to have such a climax as that, and to receive such applause from such a body of divines!

But how do you suppose the crushing is to be accomplished? Now listen! The Revelation Mr. Thompson compares the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to a great octopus. The octopus, as you know, is an animal very difficult to kill; but the gentleman remembered that Victor Hugo, in his "Toilers of the Sea," had said that even the octopus had a vulnerable point. "There is one moment in which to seize it—it is when it thrusts forth its head. Then is the time to strike." The reverend gentleman then concludes that the Mormon octopus has thrust forth its head. "Its high priest," said he, "claims a senator's chair in Washington. Now is the time to strike. Perhaps to miss it now, is to be lost."

Wonderful wisdom! worthy of a great divine! a mighty climax to a great sermon! Seriously, however, a most perfect example of an anti-climax; "a most lame and impotent conclusion," more ridiculous than the fable of the mountain laboring, to bring forth a mouse! If my voice could reach the reverend gentleman, I would inform him that there is not even the charm of novelty in what he recommended. We have heard something like this before. Why, within my own recollection, I can remember something like that having been proposed as a means of crushing Mormonism. Way down deep in the innermost recesses of my sub-consciousness, I have a recollection of suggestions made in like spirit, about the year 1898. This Doctor of Divinity's thundering fulmination against Mormonism, when I hear him pronounce it, has something familiar about it. In fact it has all the monotony of the refrain of some old familiar song. Much was said about an octopus, too, and about it thrusting forth its head, at the time to which I refer, 1898. Then its "High Priest," it was said, claimed a seat in the lower house of Congress, when a certain gentleman by the name of Roberts was elected to Congress from the State of Utah. They said, then, that the octopus was putting forth its head; then was the time to strike; to fail then would be to be lost; so they induced the House of Representatives to strike, by excluding the gentleman from the seat to which he had been legally elected, and for which he possessed, as was admitted, every constitutional qualification. But I have never heard that the achievement, which was accomplished at the cost of an outrageous violation of the constitution of our country, affected the Mormon Church. What effect did that illegal act of Congress have on Mormonism? About as much effect as a mosquito alighting on the moon would have on that sphere. The "Mormon" octopus survived that awful blow! And even the gentleman who was denied his seat, I am informed, survived also; and I have not heard that his shadow has grown less because of that experience. And should the agitation against Senator Reed Smoot result in his expulsion from the Senate of the United States—a thing which is as unlikely as it is unjust—I verily believe that Mormonism would survive even that blow. The trouble with our reverend friends is, that they persist in mistaking always the head of the octopus, and hence never strike it.

It is not my purpose to discuss the issues raised between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and this Los Angeles Presbyterian Assembly, in a spirit of retaliation. I do not intend to answer railing with railing, nor do I wish to revile those by whom we are reviled. I understand the law of the gospel of Christ to be that we should not be overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Besides, patience is one of Mormonism's chief virtues. But all this does not mean that we shall not have an appreciation of our own rights and liberties under the constitution and institutions of our country; nor does it prevent us from pointing out the unjust conduct of our assailants; nor debar us from making protest, in proper spirit, against their proposed invasions of our rights; nor blind us to the absurdity of their plans for our destruction. But we will not abuse our traducers, nor revile them because they revile us. Thank God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints occupies a position so exalted that it may smile at the efforts of men who propose to "crush" it. Especially by such means as those proposed by the Reverend Doctor Thompson. The resolutions of the Presbyterian Assembly, at Los Angeles, its fulminations against the Church of Christ, are all shafts that fall broken and harmless at the feet of the people of God. There is one passage of Byron's "Childe Harold" with which I have always been deeply impressed, as setting forth the dignity and exaltation of God in his relation to those who doubt the reality of his revelations, seek to prove them myths, and blaspheme his name. It is where the poet refers to the character and works of Voltaire and Gibbon. Concluding his reflections upon these two really great men, he says:

They were gigantic minds, and their steep aimWas, Titan-like, on daring doubts to pileThoughts which should call down thunder, and the flameOf heaven, again assailed, if heaven the whileOn man and man's research could deign do more than smile.

In like exalted station stands the Church of Christ today. The Bride, the Lamb's Wife, has no fear of her enemies. She stands too near the Bridegroom, too near his glorious coming, too near the holy, visible union with him, which is to be eternal, to fear the vain ravings of modern priests of Baal.

Let us examine more thoroughly, however, the proposition of this Reverend Doctor Thompson, and find out, if we can, how the Christian gentleman really proposes to proceed with his crushing process. Be it remembered he lays down the doctrine that "Mormonism is not to be educated, not to be civilized, not to be reformed!" Then how will he proceed? He decides to eliminate educational methods, civilizing methods, and reform methods. After eliminating these, what method has he left for crushing Mormonism? None but force—brute force; and force in the last analysis means either mobs or armies. Can it be that a body of "divines," "ministers of Jesus Christ," living in the twentieth century of the Christian era, are ready to recommend the throwing aside of all legitimate methods of dealing with a body of people supposed to be in error on matters of religion, and leave it to be justly inferred that they favor the employment of force to accomplish that which only love and goodwill toward men should undertake? Have we been correctly informed by the dispatches which say that the man who recommended such procedure is the one who was most applauded by the assembled ministers of Jesus Christ? Can it be that we are living in an age that boasts of its Christian civilization? Or, "by some devilish cantrip slight," have we been carried back to the dark ages, when the rack, and thumbscrews, and gibbets, were the agencies through which men's theological opinions and religious principles were corrected? The ages when reluctant victims were dragged to the foot of the altar, and made to burn incense at orthodox shrines, though the heart abhorred and disclaimed the sacrilegious act of the hand?

For the instruction of those who would favor the abandonment of what are recognized as Christian and civilized methods of dealing with those supposed to entertain erroneous religious principles, let us see what effect physical force and persecution has had upon Mormonism in the past. From the commencement, those who have been engaged in God's work in these last days have suffered violence, and it will be well to ascertain the results of these methods. From the first announcement Joseph Smith made of a revelation from God, until now, there has not been lacking those who have favored the crushing of Mormonism. They attempted to beat down the testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith by force of ridicule, at first, and slander and misrepresentation. When the Nephite record, the Book of Mormon, was placed in his hands for translation, mobs frequently attempted to wrest that sacred record from his custody. Failing in that, they tried to prevent it from being printed, and even so far succeeded in frightening Mr. Grandin, of Palmyra, who had engaged to publish it, that he at one time suspended work upon it. When that difficulty was overcome, and the book was finally printed, then mass meetings were held and resolutions passed in the vicinity, urging the people not to purchase the Book of Mormon or to read it; but, in spite of these efforts, the first edition of the Book of Mormon was disposed of and read by the people. When the Church was organized, the rage of its opponents increased, and persecution after persecution followed each other in rapid succession in New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois, and hundreds perished in the unholy warfare waged against the Church of Christ. Finally, the opposition concentrated its hatred upon the earthly head of the Church—the Prophet Joseph Smith. Time and time again was he hailed before judges, and, singularly enough, was always acquitted; up to the day of his death at the hands of a mob, he was never condemned by the courts of his country. His enemies were forced to the conclusion, and they said it, and they acted it: "The law cannot reach this man; powder and ball must."

Actuated by the same spirit of hatred that was rampant in this very Presbyterian Assembly at Los Angeles, mob forces of western Illinois came to the conclusion that Mormonism was not to be educated, not to be civilized, not to be reformed, "it must be crushed;" and they flattered themselves that, if this master spirit of Mormonism, Joseph Smith could only be crushed, then there would be an end to Mormonism; for it was supposed that this man was then the head of the "octopus"—its vulnerable point. This must be struck, to miss it would be to lose! So they struck; cruelly, murderously struck. But what of the effect on Mormonism? Did the "octopus" die? No. There was momentary confusion, it is true; and profound sorrow. It could not be otherwise. But Mormonism did not die. It survived that truly awful shock. The fact is that the work which the Prophet Joseph Smith did, under divine guidance, was greater than the man; good, great, and necessary as he was to that which, under God, he wrought, yet, as the heavens stand above and are higher than the earth, so the work of God which Joseph Smith brought forth, stands above and is higher, and greater, and more enduring than he. Hence, it did not fail when he fell a martyr by the old well-curb at Carthage jail. It not only survived, but gained somewhat of strength from the blood of its chief martyr. It was some time a Christian aphorism, that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. It proved to be so in this case; and after the first moment of confusion was passed, those in whose hearts the spirit of hatred had been fostered, discovered that they had, as some of them said, "scorched, not killed," the "octopus." Presently, they saw arising from the body what they took to be another head, Brigham Young. He dealt with the problems that arose before his people in a spirit most masterful, and with ability most astonishing. He conducted an exodus the most wonderful of modern times, and safely planted his people a thousand miles beyond the frontiers of the United States, where he laid the foundation of our present commonwealth of Utah, and incidentally made possible the settlement of the whole intermountain region of the United States. The desire to strike this head, in many quarters, was quite as ardent as it had been to strike Joseph Smith; but, happily, he was beyond reach. From a distance, however, the sectarian harpies, who were the predecessors of the Presbyterian divines assembled at Los Angeles, croaked in chorus, "only wait till the head of this 'octopus,' Brigham Young, dies, and then Mormonism will succumb by reason of disintegrating forces, for it cannot be that the system will produce another genius such as this wonderful man." In the course of time, the wing of the angel of Death struck this most shining mark, Brigham Young; but Mormonism lived on. Not only lived, but extended its borders, deepened its foundations, and, year by year, has grown more terrible to the distorted vision of sectarian priests, alike jealous of its success and fearful of its influence upon their crumbling creeds.

Since the death of Brigham Young, I do not remember that anyone has accredited the ruling force in Mormonism to any individual leader. Of late, its enemies have been speaking of the genius and power of the Mormon Church organization. Mr. Thompson himself quotes Dr. Richard T. Ely as declaring "there is nothing comparable to the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, except the German army." A declaration of that sort is encouraging. It indicates growth. It is no longer some individual leader that is the secret of Mormon success. It is the institution itself. That is what we have been telling our opponents right along, and it is gratifying to observe that they are beginning to understand that it is an institution, and not an individual, with which they have to deal; an organization, not a man. I am not quite satisfied, however with the comparison that is made of it to the German army. I think the German army is not comparable at all with the perfection in strength, and in all that makes for excellence, in the Church of Christ, as a means to an end, but I have not time to discuss that here.

I see by the headlines of the daily press of our city that a "Declaration of War" is made between the Presbyterians and the Mormons. I wonder sometimes what kind of a Rip Van Winkle sleep the writers of dispatch headlines, and Presbyterians as well, have been indulging in all these years, when they say that a declaration of war has just been made. That declaration was made over eighty years ago, when the Lord Almighty revealed himself in person to Joseph Smith, and in answer to his inquiry, "Which of all these contending sects are right, and which shall I join," he was told that God acknowledged none of them as his church or kingdom; That they drew near to God with their lips, while their hearts were far removed from him; that they taught for doctrine the commandments of men; that they had the form of godliness, but denied the power thereof; that their creeds were an abomination in his sight.

Such, in substance, was God's first message to the world through his great modern prophet. It is in the nature of a declaration of war, not upon the Presbyterians, however; nor upon Methodists; nor Catholics; nor upon men at all; but upon error; upon false creeds; upon false religions; upon hypocrisies clothed in religious garb,—a declaration of war upon all untruth, and it is useless to hope for peace with the sectarian Christian sects, when Mormonism bears in its hands such a message as this. It is a harsh message, but a true one; we are not responsible for it. We do not pretend to have sat in judgment upon the creeds of men. No man has the right to sit in judgment upon the creed of another. Joseph Smith did not sit in judgment upon the creeds of Christendom. On the contrary, he confessed his inability to do so. His youth, his inexperience, his lack of judgment, all proclaim him unfitted for such an office. The fact that he inquired of God for wisdom to know which of the sects he should regard as the very Church of Christ was self-confessed inability to judge in the matter. Hence, Joseph Smith did not pass judgment upon the sects of Christendom; but God did. He was competent to judge. He formulated the decision which it became Joseph Smith's duty to announce, and which it is now the Church's duty to continue proclaiming. The message, I repeat, is a bold one; but in the very boldness and greatness of such a declaration, we may see something of the Divine Majesty. It became necessary to sweep aside the rubbish of theological dogma, and doctrines which had accumulated through the ages, and make bare the rocks of truth, on which to lay anew the foundations of the work of God. Singularly enough, our Presbyterian friends, especially, seem to be rendering us valuable assistance in the work of confirming as true the message of God to the world, whereof we, with them, are made witnesses. We willing witnesses, they reluctant ones; we conscious witnesses, they unconscious ones; we witnesses of good will, they of strife. What I mean is this: the Lord declared that sectarian creeds were an abomination unto him; and of all abominable creeds, I know of none quite so abominable as this same Presbyterian creed. So abominable is it—so against all sense of even human conception of justice and mercy, that the Presbyterian Assembly at Los Angeles was found devoting its best efforts to reform it. But that very effort to reform it proclaims its errancy, and, I take the liberty of adding, its abomination also. While we cannot enter into anything like a detailed examination of that creed, allow me to call your attention to one or two points in it which clearly brings it within the descriptive term used by the Lord in the revelation to Joseph Smith. That is, sectarian creeds are an abomination in his sight. Take the following sections from chapter III of their creed on "God's Eternal Decrees:"

Section III.—By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.Section IV.—These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.Section V.—Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

Section III.—By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

Section IV.—These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

Section V.—Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

I call attention especially to the fact that those elected to salvation owe that election to God's mere free grace and love, without any foresight, on the part of God, of their faith or good works or perseverance in either of them. The election is an act of the arbitrary will of God. In fact, the Presbyterians' own explanation of this part of the creed is: Election to salvation "is not conditioned upon foreseen faith or good works or perseverance, but that in each case it rests upon sovereign grace and personal love according to the secret counsel of his [God's] will." No wonder that Raban, Bishop of Mayence, when writing to Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, when this same doctrine was rising in the church, said: "To what purpose shall I labor in the service of God? If I and predestined to death, I shall never escape from it; and if I am predestined to life, even though I do wickedly, I shall, no doubt, arrive at eternal rest!"

The rank absurdity of this doctrine was justly satirized by burns in the opening stanza of his "Holy Willie's Prayer:"

"O, Thou wha in the heavens dost dwell,Wha, as it pleaseth best thysel',Sends ane to heaven and ten to hellA' for thy glory,An' no for ony guid or illThey've done afore thee."

In application of this principle of election and reprobation to mankind, those who founded it had to meet the difficult problems as to how it would affect that very great portion of mankind who died in infancy; and, however heartless the men of those times may appear to us of modern days, it must be said of them that they had at least the courage of their convictions; and they said in Chapter X of the creed:

Section III.—Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

The very use of the expression "elect infants" implied that there were infants not elect, whose fate, in all reason, under this creed, would be the same as that of adults, who were not of the elect; and hence, the popular understanding that the Presbyterian creed implied the damnation of infants; and it should be remembered, in this connection, that the Presbyterian idea of damnation is an ever-lasting punishment in hell from which there is no hope of deliverance. This implication as to infants was not denied, for a long time, by those who accepted the creed; but, being oppressed with the apparent injustice of the damnation of innocent babes because not among the elect, Presbyterians began to offer the explanation, early in our last century, that they believed all infants dying in infancy were elect; and such has been the agitation upon that question, both within and without the Presbyterian church, that at last the assembly at Los Angeles, authorized to speak for the Presbyterian church, declares, in effect, that their belief is that all infants dying in infancy are of the elect. This is certainly very gracious on their part. It makes one feel a little more easy regarding the fate of innocent babes, now that we know that children dying in infancy, according to the reformed Presbyterian creed, are among the elect! Still we cannot but deplore the fact that many thousands of mothers, within the membership of the Presbyterian church, even, have mourned their innocent babes dying in infancy as among the probably eternally lost; but it is refreshing to see the indication of progress even among our Presbyterian friends, and it is to be hoped that the light will continue to grow in their minds, until they shall not only see the impropriety of leaving the salvation of infants dying in infancy, in doubt, but shall correct, also, this other abominable part of their creed respecting election in general. The amendment of the creed respecting the fate of infants helps it but a very little. The damnation of a good man, because he is not of the elect, is just as outrageous as the damnation of an innocent babe. In some respects of the case, it is even worse. Here, we will say, is a man who throughout his life has made every effort to realize, in his living, the lofty ideal of possessing "clean hands and a pure heart;" who entertains only aspirations that are noble, and performs deeds only that are honorable; who in the relationships of life, as son, brother, husband, father, and citizen, discharges, with reasonable fidelity, all his duties in these relations, and, as nearly as man can while under the effects of the fall and pestered with human inclinations to perversity, leads what is recognized as a virtuous life. Yet, if not of the elect, this man is doomed eternally, and his struggling for the attainment of his lofty ideals and his noble life, avail him nothing in the way of warding off damnation; because, forsooth, he is not of the elect, and hence must perish everlastingly. That such conclusion is forced upon those accepting the Presbyterian creed, is evidenced from chapter X, Section IV of that creed:

Section IV.—Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, [i. e., awakened aspirations for righteousness] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved, much less can men not professing the Christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they ever so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

That is to say, however righteous or honorable men may be, and though they accept, as far as in them lies the power, the Christian faith, yet, if not among the elect, their doom is sealed, and that doom is everlasting damnation from the comfortable presence of God! I suggest that our friends consider their creed again, and pass a resolution that all such men as the supposed righteous man just now described are, of the elect, as well as infants dying in infancy.

Equally necessary is it that they should reform their creed with reference to the fate of the heathen. For, in the application of the principle laid down in the section of the creed last quoted is relegated to eternal damnation all "men not professing the Christian religion." In explaining the application of this section of the creed to such persons, in an authoritative work on Presbyterianism, ("Commentary of the Confession of Faith with Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes," by the Rev. A. A. Hodge, D. D.,) it is said:

The heathen in mass, with no single definite and unquestionable exception on record, are evidently strangers to God, and going down to death in an unsaved condition. The presumed possibility of being saved without a knowledge of Christ remains, after eighteen hundred years, a possibility illustrated by no example.

When it is remembered that of the population of the earth at present, after two thousand years of Christianity, less than one-third of the population of the world is even nominally Christian, while more than two-thirds are outside of any form of Christianity whatsoever; and when it is further remembered that in past ages the proportion of Christians to the population of the world has been very much less than this; and when it is further remembered that, in Presbyterian ideas of the gospel, there are no means by which the gospel may be applied except in this present life, and those who fail to receive the gospel here are eternally lost, we are not much surprised at the infidel who draws the conclusion, when contemplating the doctrines of this abominable creed, that, if this creed be true, then God, when he created the human race, was but creating, in the main, fuel for the flames of hell out of human souls! Is it any wonder, if other creeds of divided Christendom contain similar doctrines, or other doctrines which as flagrantly violate every conception of the relative claims of mercy and justice, that God declared the creeds of men an abomination in his sight? I told you in the beginning of my remarks that I would not have time to examine even this one creed in detail, but could only point out one or two items that would tend to demonstrate the truth of the Lord's revelation to Joseph Smith respecting the abomination of the creeds of men; and, having done this, I must stop, as our time has expired. But I cannot close these remarks in any other than in a hopeful spirit. I say again, it is encouraging to see our Presbyterian friends amending their creed; and I sincerely trust that the light which has apparently begun to dawn upon their minds will grow brighter and brighter unto the perfect day; until they will not only change their creed respecting the fate of infants, but will go on adding line upon line and precept upon precept, here and there eliminating that which is so glaringly abominable, until at last they shall be so accustomed to the light of truth that they will be able to look upon the fullness thereof as it is revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ in these last days, through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

The Lord bless you, and also the Presbyterians, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

The writer was asked to speak upon "The Relations of the Church to the State" at a "Silver Banquet" given at the Knutsford Hotel in May, 1895. The Utah State Constitutional Convention had recently adjourned; and a very widely attended Convention in the interest of the free and unlimited coinage of silver by the government of the United States had just come to a close; the banquet at which the writer's remarks were made was given in honor of the members of that Convention.

There were present, among many other notable guests, Governor Rickards, of Montana, Ex-Governor Alva Adams, of Colorado, Senator Clark of Wyoming, Governor McConnell of Idaho, Ex-Congressman Bartine of Nevada, General Thomas J. Clunie of California, General Penrose, then in command at Fort Douglas, Utah, Governor Prince of New Mexico, Hon. Wharton Barker of Pennsylvania. Among the gentlemen of note from Utah were Governor Caleb B. West, Mayor Baskin, then Congressman, afterwards Senator, Joseph L. Rawlins, and Judge C. C. Goodwin, toast-master.

The question of the relations of the Church and the State had lung been debated in Utah, and now that Utah was upon the eve of beginning her career as a sovereign state in the American Union, the subject was of considerable interest, locally, largely because it had been very generally charged that in Utah there was grave danger, if not of a union of Church and State, then of state domination by the Mormon Church, and doubtless the subject and speaker were chosen for these reasons.

The speaker was introduced by Judge Goodwin, Toast-Master, who said:

"The committee that prepared this programme, having an idea that something would be needed to bring men back to sober thoughts, after Governor McConnell's speech, ["Is There Any Light?" was Governor McConnell's subject] made the next sentiment, "Church and State," and they put down as the speaker Utah's most eloquent son. It gives me extreme pleasure to introduce to you the Hon. B. H. Roberts."

Mr. Roberts spoke as follows:

Honorable Toast-Master and Gentlemen—I think for the first time in my life I appreciate the feelings of the young shepherd, David, when Israel's proud king placed upon him his own plated armor; gave him a shield and a great spear with which to fight Goliath. David said: "I cannot go with these; for I have not proved them." He appeared before his antagonist in the simple garb of the shepherd, with his sling and a few smooth stones. And so, after the very flattering introduction that has been given me by the honorable toast-master of the evening, I feel myself unworthy to bear the honored title that he has given me. I disclaim it altogether and say in simple truth, I am not an orator, I am not eloquent, but, as you all know, "a plain, blunt man," capable only of speaking those things that you already know. I therefore most humbly beg to disclaim the proud place that the introduction of the toast-master would assign me.

When I was informed that I would be expected to speak upon this staid, and I may say threadbare subject, "Church and State," it appeared to me that the committee who had arranged this programme had gone somewhat out of the way in selecting such a subject; but I defer to their judgement and am willing to say it is all right, but ask that you gentlemen of the banquet will not hold me responsible for inviting your "sober" consideration to such a theme in the midst of such temptations to be otherwise than sober.

There are three relations which the church and the state may sustain to each other. First, the state may dominate the church; second, the church may dominate the state; and, third, church and state may occupy separate spheres, and be absolutely divorced the one from the other. Those who argue for the rightfulness of the first relationship will tell you that the state is not within the church, but the church is within the state; they will tell you that it is the state which rules the land, that wages war, that levies taxes and governs at least the external destinies of the citizen, and that whenever the religious creeds cease to be individual and result in associations, those organizations come within the proper cognizance and authority of the state; and that the state has a right to draw the lines of ecclesiastical policy, and to fix the constitution of the church as knowing what is best for the general society.

Those who contend for the second relationship—that the church should dictate to the state—argue that the church, as the representative of the divine authority, is also the superior authority; that indeed the state itself is but an outgrowth of that superior authority; that as the moon but reflects the light of the sun, so the state borrows whatsoever of authority it possesses from the spiritual authority—the church. Furthermore, they insist that in the matter of chronological order itself, the church antedates the state; it is the first society, primitive and eternal, and hence has the true sovereignty; that the state is properly but the instrument of the church to execute the divine decrees.

Those who contend that the church and state should exist separately, recognize the great truth that the church and the state have independent and different spheres. There is no proper connection between the two, and no necessity exists for interference one with the other. They contend that the church should exist unnoticed by the state; that religious creeds should approximate or separate according to the inclinations of the church members.

Mankind by the test of experience, has learned the relative value of these several relationships which may exist between the church and the state, and now, in the light of that experience, let me consider the virtues and vices of each. For the purpose of illustration I need go no further back than the time when Constantine became the patron of the Christian religion and elevated the sect from the condition of a persecuted society to the state religion of the great empire. He invited the Christian ministers to his court, gave them a seat at his table in the palace, loaded them with honors and riches, but was careful himself to draw the line of ecclesiastical policy and pattern the church organization very much after the constitution of the civil government of Rome. As a reward for these favors the ministry of the church stood in humble attitude at the foot of the throne. They overlooked the shortcomings of their great patron, guilty of putting to death without just cause a wife, a son, and in violation of his plighted faith, his brother-in-law.

There is another period in church history where the state becomes the patron of the church and dominated it. That occurred during the great "reformation" of the sixteenth century when Henry VIII, displeased because the pope of Rome refused to sever the bond of marriage between himself and the faithful Catherine of Aragon, took affairs ecclesiastical within his own realm into his own hands and founded a state church. In this period of history we find repeated just what was done in the case of Constantine. Notwithstanding the cruelties, the debauchees and the murders of Henry the ministers of Christ still awarded to him the title, "Defender of the Faith."

I mention these circumstances because they exhibit the vice of the state dominating a church. That vice consists in this, that such a relationship bridles the tongues of God's ministers, who are commanded to reprove sin in high places and demand the same moral standard of the prince that is demanded of the pauper. Whenever the ministry of a church stands in dread of the temporal power, when by it they may be unfrocked, it will be a rare thing indeed to find men of sufficient moral courage to be true to the divine commandment in preaching and executing the word of God; hence the mischief of state domination of the church.

One of the wise men of the east, Aesop, tells the story of a camel who in the midst of a terrible storm on the desert, begged his Arabian master to allow him the privilege of putting his head within the tent out of the storm. The indulgent master granted his request, but no sooner did the camel get his head into the tern than he crowded in his shoulders also, and then the whole huge bulk of his body, and, turning about, he kicked his master out of the tent into the storm. So did the Christian ecclesiastical power with the civil power in the Roman empire. Papal Rome rose upon the ruins of pagan Rome, and for centuries ruled the nations with a rod of iron. The evils growing out of the church dictating the state are to be read in that period of darkness which covered our earth from the fifth to the sixteenth centuries.

It is not necessary for me in detail to point out those evils. It will be sufficient if I call your attention in a general way to the vice arising from this relationship. That vice consists in this—that such a relationship between church and state tends to debase and weaken the ministry of Christ. All ministers of the gospel are not equal to the virtue of their great Master. When the evil prince of this world stood before the Lamb of God and, with a master hand, drew aside the curtain which covered the glory of the nations and pointed to them in all their splendor and wealth, and said, "All these will I give thee, only fall down and worship me;" the divine man could look the tempter in the face and say: "Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." The ministers of the church today are not tempted to this extent. The arch-enemy of men's souls knows too well that it is not necessary. From the back door of the parsonage our ministers may see enough to seduce them from the work of the Divine Master; yea, so much of the yellow gold of this earth as may be clutched thus in the hand may sometimes be sufficient for their seduction.

When you make it possible for the state to dominate the church, such is the glamor and sheen of temporal power that men are willing and do forget the glories of eternity that they may revel in the pleasures and powers of this world for a season. Hence it becomes necessary to preserve the integrity of God's ministry that you separate the church so far from the state as to make the dictation of the latter by the former impossible, and thus lessen the temptation of the ministry to neglect the things of heaven in order to dabble in the affairs of state.

I have already said that those who contend for the separation of church and state recognize separate spheres for those two powers to operate in. This idea, I may say, had its second birth in the great revolution of the sixteenth century, sometimes called the "Reformation." John Calvin was a leader in that doctrine in his day. John Knox followed him, and there was a hot contest in the old world for the maintenance of this doctrine—not for the good of the state so much as for the good of the church—for these champions held that in order for the ministers of God to perform well and faithfully their duties they must be removed from fear of interference of kings and potentates.

But the most interesting period of the struggle for the separation of church and state is to be found in the history of the founding of our own great nation. After the war of the American revolution the statesmen of that period were confronted with the work of forming a government for our country. There were men who contended that God ought to be put in the Constitution, and an establishment of religion instituted. But the revolutionary fathers looked over the whole land and found that the people were divided beyond the hope of union into one great and united church; and that to make a state church out of any one of the sects would be an act of injustice to all the rest—a thing they were unwilling to perpetrate; and they solved the problem by crystallizing this doctrine of separation of church and state in that declaration written in the constitution of our land, which says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

And thus we travel the circle of human experience and come back at last to stand face to face with the grand doctrine taught by the great founder of the Christian church, who, on the occasion of men seeking to embroil him in a conflict with the civil powers of this world, said:

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's."

That declaration, falling from the lips of him who spoke as never man spake, and that declaration in the American constitution, have as their source the same inspiration.

In years that are past, in the hearts of many, there existed a fear that here in Utah we should be confronted with this question of the relation of church and state; and to state it frankly I may say that the fear that there would be a violation of this American principle respecting the separation of church and state has been one of the causes which has delayed so long the act of justice to the people of Utah—her admission into the American Union.

I want to say to these honored guests of ours, so soon to separate from us and go back to their homes, that you may tell your people that here in Utah we have solved the problem; and that which we have written in our state constitution, and which we mean to keep inviolate, is in harmony with what is written in the great national Constitution of our country.

There is one phase of this question which I think sometimes is not sufficiently considered; and that is that it is not always the fault of the church that there is a union of church and state or ecclesiastical interference in political and civil affairs. There are politicians and political parties who are not above fawning and crawling at the feet of ecclesiastical influence. Somehow or other the calamities attendant upon ecclesiastical interference in politics never appear to them until that influence is exercised in behalf of the "other fellow" or the other political party. Let our politicians stand erect, let our political parties resent ecclesiastical influence when exerted in their behalf as they would resent it when exercised against them, and I promise you that in the new state of Utah we shall have no difficulty growing out of ecclesiastical domination of our political affairs.

You are extremely patient with me in these rather extended remarks of mine, but I am done with my subject proper. If, however, you will still be patient with me, there are a few words that I wish to say to the gentlemen who constitute the Silver Convention, that has now so happily, and as I believe so effectually, accomplished the purposes for which it was convened. I know not, gentlemen, whether ever before you have felt the inspiration that comes from contemplation of a missionary enterprise; but it seems to me that if a cause righteous and just is necessary to give true inspiration to men, then, indeed, how that inspiration ought to shine forth from you in word and in action. To labor in the interests of the toiling masses is worthy of laudable Ambition's highest aspirations.

And now may I not say for you, though but a layman, and looking upon you and your work from the ranks of the people, may I not invoke the power divine for you, saying, What in them is dark, illumine; what is low, raise and support; that to the height of this great argument they may assert the patriotism of their intentions, and justify the demand that we all make, that silver shall be restored to its place in the monetary system of the United States.

Judge Goodwin (toast-master)—A few of you who read the Bible (laughter) will remember that when David said that the work set before him was too great for him to perform, he still had the sling under his sheepskin, with which he slew Goliath, and when my friend, in his native and honest modesty, said that too much had been perhaps expected of him, I knew he had the sling.

The following remarks were prepared for a Jefferson dinner, at the Commercial Club rooms in Salt Lake City, in April, 1907; and afterwards published in the Salt Lake Herald, of May 14th.

The question of the relations of church and state, or rather the question of the domination of the state by the church, was still agitated in Utah. The Mormon Church at its Annual Conference in April of the above year had issued an "Address to the World" in which its attitude on the question was once more stated, and stated with greater clearness and emphasis than ever before.

It was in the expectation that some reference would be made to this local question that the subject of the following address was selected. In order that the attitude of the Mormon Church with reference to the relations of the church and the state may be present to the readers' mind, while considering the following paper. I quote that part of the aforesaid Address upon the subject:

"In answer to the charge of disloyalty, founded upon alleged secret obligations against our government, we declare to all men that there is nothing treasonable or disloyal in any ordinance, ceremony, or ritual of the Church."The overthrow of earthly governments; the union of church and state; domination of the state by the church; ecclesiastical interference with the political freedom and rights of the citizen,—all such things are contrary to the principles and policy of the Church, and directly at variance with the oft-repeated declarations of its chief presiding authorities and of the Church itself, speaking through its general conferences. The doctrine of the Church on the subject of government, stands as follows:"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law."

"The overthrow of earthly governments; the union of church and state; domination of the state by the church; ecclesiastical interference with the political freedom and rights of the citizen,—all such things are contrary to the principles and policy of the Church, and directly at variance with the oft-repeated declarations of its chief presiding authorities and of the Church itself, speaking through its general conferences. The doctrine of the Church on the subject of government, stands as follows:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law."

Such is our acknowledgement of duty to civil governments. Again:

"We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same, and that such as will administer law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people (if a republic), or the will of the sovereign."We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government; whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government; whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

With reference to the laws of the Church, it is expressly said:

"Be subject to the powers that be until he comes whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet."'Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth."

"Be subject to the powers that be until he comes whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

"'Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth."

That is to say, no law or rule enacted, or revelation received by the Church, has been promulgated for the State. Such laws and revelations as have been given are solely for the government of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of church authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and independence of the individual in the performance of his political duties. If, at any time, there has been conduct at variance with this doctrine, it has been in violation of the well settled principles and policy of the Church.

We declare that from principle and policy, we favor:

The absolute separation of church and state;

No domination of the state by the church;

No church interference with the functions of the state;

No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion;

The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs;

The equality of all churches before the law.

The reaffirmation of this doctrine and policy, however, is predicated upon the express understanding that politics in the states where our people reside, shall be conducted as in other parts of the Union; that there shall be no interference by the State with the Church, nor with the free exercise of religion. Should political parties make war upon the Church, or menace the civil, political, or religious rights of its members as such,—against a policy of that kind, by any political party of set of men whatsoever, we assert the inherent right of self-preservation for the Church, and her right and duty to call upon her children, and upon all who love justice, and desire the perpetuation of religious liberty, to come to her aid, to stand with her until the danger shall have passed. And this, openly, submitting the justice of our cause to the enlightened judgement of our fellow men, should such an issue unhappily arise. We desire to live in peace and confidence with our fellow citizens of all political parties and of all religions.

On the plain headstone that marks the grave of Thomas Jefferson, after his name are these words:

Authorof the Declaration ofAMERICAN INDEPENDENCE,ofThe Statute of VirginiaFor Religious Freedom, andFather of the Universityof Virginia.

This inscription Mr. Jefferson himself wrote out. It evidently indicates what he regarded as the three most worthy achievements of his life; and when it is seen that next to being the author of the Declaration of American Independence, he prides himself on being the author of this "Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom," your committee may be pardoned, I think, for placing on the program for this evening the subject I am all too briefly to discuss—Jefferson's contribution to religious freedom in America.

Men in their less serious moods may jest as they please at religion, but after all it is the most serious business of life. No really great mind is dead to its influence. And at some time or other in their experience, men who are great of soul seek to understand the truths religion teaches, and seldom are they disappointed in her lessons. Disappointed, indeed, would we have been had Jefferson taken no interest in so great a subject: one which so nearly concerns human happiness, and so largely affects the peace and well being of society. Both the texture of Jefferson's mind and his environment, however, were such as to make the subject one of profound interest to him. When he appeared at William and Mary college at 17 years of age, we are told that he possessed the three essential qualities of the successful student, namely, "perfect health, good habits and an inquiring mind." Fortunately for him, Dr. William Small was professor of mathematics in the college, and for a time he also filled the chair of philosophy. In his capacity of teacher and outside college companion of Jefferson, Professor Small doubtless did much that influenced the development of the future statesman's mind. He is described as a man of enlightened understanding, but it is also said that he was "not too orthodox in his opinions." But that is a circumstance scarcely to be regretted when the orthodoxy of that day is taken into account, for I am inclined to think that the further one was removed from that orthodoxy the nearer he might be to God.

There are two acts in the life of Jefferson to which I shall allude, and which I think will sufficiently demonstrate the profound interest he had in the subject of religion. The first is the writing of a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, on the subject of that young man's religious studies. He urges him to a thorough and candid investigation of the subject of religion without regard to consequences. If young Carr's investigation ended in the conviction that there was no God, Jefferson was of opinion that his young relative would still find incentives to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness of its practice, and in the love of others it would procure for him. If on the other hand he should find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that he was acting under the divine approval—and I think the idea which follows has never been sufficiently emphasized—the fact of that divine approval would be "a vast additional incitement" to the practice of virtue. If he should find that Jesus was also a God, the student would derive comfort by the belief in his aid and love. Reason was the only oracle given him of heaven, and he was not responsible for the "rightness" of his decision, but he would be responsible for the "uprightness" of it.

The other incident alluded to is Jefferson's complication of the four-fold text of the "Life and Morals of Jesus," consisting of selected texts from the four evangelists. I mean by "four-fold compilation" that he cut the passages respectively from Greek, Latin, French and English copies of the New Testament. For the "teachings of Jesus" he selected "only those passages whose style and spirit proved them genuine, and his own." This compilation was his own effort to "knock down the artificial scaffolding reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus." And of the teaching of Jesus thus set forth, he said:

"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

I am not claiming that the Christianity of Jefferson was orthodox. His correspondence with Dr. Priestly, and his open admiration for the teaching of Dr. Channing fix the nature of his belief in the founder of Christianity. I refer to these matters merely to show that to the mind of this remarkable man religion was a subject of profound interest and respect; and also to suggest that it was really the religious nature of the man that prompted the part he took in securing religious freedom in the commonwealth of Virginia, and through that circumstance, with another to be mentioned later, aided mightily in securing religious freedom in America.

Chiefly upon New England has been fixed the odium of religious intolerance in our country; but human nature in the eighteenth century was pretty much of the same sort of stuff throughout the British colonies; at least the difference was not so very great between New England and Virginia so far as it found expression in religious intolerance; for if in New England the people could be fined, whipped or put in the stocks for not going to church—in Virginia they could be punished for going to the wrong one, while Baptists, Presbyterians and Quakers were compelled to pay tithes to a church they did not attend. If in New England the people could be compelled to stay awake and refrain from smiling while in church, no matter how tedious or ridiculous the sermons were—in Virginia justices of the peace were committing Quakers to the pillory for keeping their hats on in church. If in Massachusetts, at one time it was a capital offense to celebrate mass—in Virginia heresy was punishable by burning at the stake. If in Massachusetts the Church of England services could not be performed, nor baptism administered by immersion, nor a company of men pray with their hats on—in Virginia denial of the doctrine of the Trinity was punishable by three years imprisonment, and Unitarians were legally deprived of the custody of their children on the ground that people holding to the belief in the unity of God were unfit to be intrusted with the rearing of their own children! If in New England the spirit of religious intolerance was more severe—in Virginia it endured longer; for while in the former place the fight for religious freedom was won by the middle of the eighteenth century, it was not until nearly the close of that century that it was won in the latter. Religious freedom was not established in Virginia until the final adoption, in 1786, of Jefferson's statute for that purpose. The statute was presented in the house of burgesses in 1776, and the main clause was as follows:

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, ministry, or place whatsoever; nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion; and the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Such an enactment as is here proposed seems now so reasonable to us, so commonplace in its justice, that we marvel that it was not unanimously and immediately passed by the house of burgesses. But after twenty-five days of debate, which Jefferson himself characterized as "desperate contests," the utmost of achievement at that time was the repeal of the statute which imposed penalties for going to the wrong church and compelling dissenters to pay tithes. Not until nine years more had passed—years of bitterness and strife and noble effort on the part of Jefferson and his liberal associates, could Virginia be brought to a settlement of her religious problems by the adoption of the foregoing proposed enactment.

This statute, so far as in him lay the power, Jefferson tried to make a sort of English bill of rights. At least I judge so from the nature of one of the paragraphs of the statute, and which is well worth the trouble to read.

"And though we well know that this assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with power equal to our own, and that, therefore, to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind; and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

Of course, as Mr. Jefferson himself realized, the state legislature could not bind succeeding legislatures from altering or amending this statute, but undoubtedly there was a moral force that went with what was there set down in the statute. At any rate the passing of this act was a final settlement of the question. Never since those days has it been disturbed, and finally those principles were adopted in every state of the American union.

The principle upon which Jefferson acted in securing religious freedom in Virginia—though expressed in language used some years after the conflict in Virginia had closed—is set forth as follows:

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others, or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

The arguments by which Jefferson sustained the justice of the Virginia statute, though commonplace to us now, are worth repeating in part, since occasional reference to fundamental principles is beneficial. Opinion, he declared to be something with which government had nothing to do; government was no more competent to prescribe beliefs than medicine, and constraint made hypocrites, not converts. Error alone needed support of government; truth could stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion, and you make fallible men, governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons, your inquisitors, and even if desirable, uniformity is unattainable.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children," he said, "since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people; that these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion; that ours is but one of that thousand; that if there be but one right, and ours that one, we would wish to see the nine hundred and ninety-nine wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it, while we refuse it ourselves."

Jefferson's contribution to religious freedom in America was not limited to the drafting and finally securing the passage of the Virginia statute on the subject. Although it must be admitted that his further contribution to religious freedom in America resulted from indirect, rather than from direct means. After the war of independence closed, and the founders of the great republic met in convention to form a more perfect union and a more efficient government, this principle of religious freedom was finally included among the provisions of that constitution, under which we have now had one hundred and twenty years of national life. It expressly provides that

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Also that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Jefferson was in France during the formation of the Constitution, and therefore could have had but little to do directly with its formation, but it must be remembered that some years before—1776—he had written what will always be regarded as the preface to our Constitution, namely, the immortal Declaration of Independence. When in that instrument Jefferson declared as self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with an inalienable right to live, to be free, and to pursue happiness; and that to secure these rights governments were instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—he set in order the foundation principles of all our liberties, religious as well as civil. After the adoption of that declaration and its maintenance by a successful appeal to the dreadful arbitrament of war, it was inevitable that the religious liberties now secured by constitutional provision in every state of the union, and in the national constitution as well, should come. That Jefferson contributed to this general result more, perhaps, than any other American statesman, as well as being the leading factor in the establishment of religious freedom in Virginia, will not be disputed.

This American religious liberty which sets the church free from the interference of the civil authority, carries with it as a corollary the freedom of the state from the interference of ecclesiastical authority—it results in the absolute separation of the church and the state. Great as religious freedom is, and in my estimation above all price, yet the other half of our American system—the freedom of the state from ecclesiastical domination, is of equal value, and equally necessary to our peace and the security of both church and state. It is claimed by high authority that one-half of the wars of Europe and half the troubles that have vexed European states from the early centuries of the Christian era down to the nineteenth century, have arisen from theological differences or from the rival claims of church and state. Thank God, the United States under the national Constitution has no part in such a record as that! The comparative peace and freedom from religious strife that has obtained in our own country, through more than a century of religious freedom, vindicates the wisdom of our system, which has led to the happiest results. A few years ago—1891—these results were described by a gentleman of commanding influence, both in literature and in the civil affairs of his own country, and who now holds the exalted station of British ambassador to our government at Washington, Mr. James Bryce. Listen to his words:

"There are no quarrels of churches and sects. Judah does not vex Ephraim, nor Ephraim envy Judah. No established church looks down scornfully upon dissenters from the height of its titles and endowments, and talks of them as hindrances in the way of its work. No dissenters pursue an established church in a spirit of watchful jealousy, nor agitate for its overthrow. One is not offended by the contrast between the theory and the practice of a religion of peace, between professions of universal affection in pulpit addresses and forms of prayer, and the acrimony of clerical controversialists. Still less, of course, is there that sharp opposition and antagonism of Christians and anti-Christians which lacerates the private as well as public life of France. Rivalry between sects appears only in the innocent form of the planting of new churches and raising of funds for missionary objects, while most of the Protestant denominations, including the four most numerous, constantly fraternize in charitable work. Between Roman Catholics and Protestants there is little hostility, and sometimes co-operation for a philanthropic purpose. The skeptic is no longer under a social ban, and discussions on the essentials of Christianity and of theism are conducted with good temper. There is not a country in the world where Frederick the Great's principle, that everyone should be allowed to go to heaven in his own way, is so fully applied. This sense of religious peace as well as religious freedom all around one, is soothing to the weary European, and contributes not a little to sweeten the lives of ordinary people."

Back to Index Next