Читать книгу Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Vol.1&2) - B. H. Roberts - Страница 28

Table of Contents

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

Author

of the Declaration of

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE,

of

The Statute of Virginia

For Religious Freedom, and

Father of the University

of 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."

I am aware, ladies and gentlemen, that I am trespassing on your valuable time, but bear with me while I make brief reference to local conditions. It may be said that in Utah we have not participated in this peace and tranquility described as characteristic of America by Mr. Bryce. That here there has been to some extent church domination of the state; ecclesiastical interference in civil affairs; and I am not prepared to make unqualified denial of those charges. But I do feel free to say that it is my conviction that we have entered upon a period in our experience in Utah, when we shall fully participate in the general peace that results from the American doctrine of religious and political freedom, and the separation of church and state. The recent authoritative utterances of the dominant Church in Utah is the fact on which I base this hope of mine. Full acquiescence in this American system of the relations of church and state are set forth in that utterance with greater emphasis than ever before. It commits the dominant Church irrevocably to the doctrine of "non-interference of church authority in political matters; the absolute freedom and independence of the individual in the performance of his political duties." And then it makes this emphatic declaration that "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." Of course I know there are those who doubt the good faith of this late official utterance of the Church, but it is preposterous to assume that this religious organization would dare, before the world and its own people, to enter upon such a system of deliberate deception and hypocrisy as it would be involved in if its late official utterance be not honest.

But even if it were conceivable that duplicity was the deliberate intention of the church or its chief authorities, I should still be hopeful of the outcome, and that the outcome would be hastened by this last official utterance. And these are my reasons: The questions of religious freedom, and the relations of church and state are settled once for all in this country. The right of the individual to be politically free is crystallized into accomplished fact; and so dear to the individual is that right, so jealously is it guarded by the political community as a condition fundamental to the preservation of the American spirit of manhood, and national well-being that it stands absolutely in no danger of being sacrificed, either to the cunning of priests or the influence of a church, however powerful. If the dominant Church, so emphatically committed to the support of this American system, should attempt to play double—it would, and could only, mean ruin and disruption to the Church. As an organization it might survive every opposing force, but it could not survive the double dealing in which it would be involved if its last official utterance on the subject of non-interference in politics is not put forth in good faith. Should its leaders chicane in this matter it would mean severest censure of public opinion; bitterness and resentment and rebellion in its own membership; loss of respect and influence of all kinds, both in the Church and in the state; in a word, such a course would spell disaster. Intelligent men must know these things; and, giving the Church leaders, and the Church membership credit for at least ordinary intelligence, one must believe them honest as to what they have committed themselves to in their last official utterance. And by an honest adherence to the principles in that utterance, I feel confident that in Utah we shall share in the tranquility which in respect to these questions obtains everywhere else in America.