he would grant us his grace to repent of our sins, and amend our lives, according to his holy word; *** that he will diffuse useful knowledge, and extend the influence of true religion."

The religion of his "HOLY WORD," which forbids labor on Sunday: not the religion of the infidel, or Jew, or pagan.

In March, 1780, another committee was appointed for the same purpose, and the last Wednesday of April was set apart as the day. In 1781, another fast was ordered to be kept on Thursday, the 3d of May. In 1782, another was observed on the last Thursday of April; and "early in 1783, the Divine Being, whom the Congress had so often nationally and officially honored, vouchsafed peace to the Union."

In each of these proclamations for a fast, the spirit of true Christianity is breathed, and Congress adjourned to join in supplications to the Christian's God, for his protection, forgiveness, and blessing; confessing their sins, and humbling themselves on account of them. Congress also adjourned to unite in the religious services of Good Friday. Away with the objector's calumny; it is as base and false as ever was uttered by the "accuser of the brethren." What would those Congresses have said to a proposition, at that period, to desecrate the holy day of God-to give the sanction of the nation to it? They were good men, and the people were blessed. Would that our rulers could now be induced to engage in such acts of acknowledgment of their dependence on the Christian's God, and manifest such a disposition to sustain his laws.

There is other evidence to show that this nation recognized the Christian religion, and that the framers of the Constitution were not "anti-christian men."

THANKSGIVINGS.

Each year from 1777 to 1783 inclusive, we find Congress appointing days for national thanksgiving and prayer, which were duly observed. On motion of John Randolph, in 1781, October 24th, it was "Resolved, That Congress will, at 2 P. M., this day, go in procession to the Dutch Lutheran church, and return thanks to Almighty God, for"—&c.

In the proclamation for a day of thanksgiving, we find sen

timents of piety expressed in the following and similar lan

:

guage:

"That all the people assemble on that day to offer fervent supplications to the God of all grace, that he would incline our hearts, for the future, to keep all his laws, and that he would cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread all over the earth" -"above all, to praise him that he hath continued to us the light of the blessed gospel, and to supplicate him, that he would cause pure religion and virtue to flourish."

It would seem that the wise and patriotic men of those times believed that the "blessed gospel," not the Koran, nor the Shaster, but the Christian system, was better adapted to the wants of men than any other system; and their conduct shows that they did not entertain views congenial to the feelings of infidels and deists of our day. Had both lived at the same time, they would have been antipodes in sentiment and action. We see no lack of proof that the framers of our Constitution, and the men who first administered it, were not anti-christian, as our objectors would have us believe. It is perfectly evident that these men were not ashamed to own their accountability to God, and their dependence on him; nor were they ashamed or afraid to recognize the Christian religion, in their national capacity. They had discernment, fidelity, piety, and patriotism enough to prompt them to make a wise choice, when they laid down the Christian religion as the foundation of this government, instead of the Jewish, Mohammedan, pagan, infidel, or deistical religion. God be praised for the noble deed.

But it appears that many of the members of Congress, for the last twelve or fifteen years, have been ashamed to acknowledge God; and infidels have united with them to prove that we have no Sabbath, and that this nation knows no religion. She may, in her riches and pride, have forgotten her religion; but she once had a religion, and that was the Christian. She ought to have it still.

Infidels would have us believe that the Jew, the Mohammedan, and the pagan, have as much claim to legislation in favor of their religion, as Christians have a right to expect that Congress will not legislate against theirs. But these pleas are all

false-a mere subterfuge to rid themselves of all accountability to the laws of God and man.

CHAPLAINS.

There is one fact more, in connection with this point, from which we gather further testimony:

In 1776, the Congress of the United States, "Resolved, That a chaplain be appointed to each regiment in the continental army." In 1777, "Resolved, That chaplains be appointed to the hospitals." In 1788, Congress "earnestly recommended to the States and officers of the army, to discountenance profaneness and vice;" and solemnly, more than once, resolved that true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness,-solicited Christian ministers to preach at the funerals of deceased members." From the commencement of their sittings, Christian chaplains were appointed to open their sessions with prayer.

STATE LAWS.

The several States which own canals and railroads, should close them on Sunday; and not corrupt the morals of their citizens, undermine our government, and sin against God, by permitting them to be used on that day. Every good citizen ought to remonstrate against such a practice. Infidels and deists, always ready to carp whenever anything is said or done to cross their path of blood, over the bodies and souls of men, have said -"Well, then, the Jew who will not work on Saturday, according to that doctrine, should call on the legislatures to make laws preventing work on Saturday." It has been clearly shown that this nation recognizes the Christian, instead of the Jewish religion. Moreover, we have never called on the States to make any law whatever, about individual or corporate property, though it might be proper to do so. The States should not run boats and cars, nor suffer them to be run, on the Lord's day, on their canals and railroads, putting the money thus earned into the treasury, because we are a Christian nation; and such an act tends to destroy the Christian religion, and our government. The same may be said of national property. Neither the States

nor the nation has a right to commit such a suicidal act. If we were an infidel or pagan nation, then, so far as civil law, and our religion were concerned, there would be no objection. But now they have no such right, civil or divine. By continuing the practice, they dishonor God, ruin men, and will, ere long, writhe under the displeasure of that Being who has said, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

Infidels say, our States have no right to legislate on religion. Our Sabbath laws ought to be repealed. In other words, we suppose they would be understood to say,-" If we choose to corrupt your youth, contaminate your morals, and destroy your religion, you have no right to make a law to prevent it, though our conduct would assuredly lead to that result. We have thrown off the government of God, because we do not believe there is any God; and now we would throw off the government of man; because we believe man would do better without any government. We hate the Christian religion, and we know how it can be destroyed; and if you let us alone, it shall be destroyed. You shall let us alone, because you have no right to make a law touching religion."

"We would ask, is it rational to suppose that the government and nation, in 1776, were not Christian, and knew no religion ?— when the United States, in Congress assembled, (though there were then Jews, and possibly a few deists,) yet officially promoted the circulation of the Old and New Testaments, bound themselves by the sanctity of an oath, on the Holy Volume; rejoiced, 'above all' in the possession of the Gospel of peace, attributed all national blessings to Almighty God; implored, and recommended the people to implore, his direction in their councils, and his forgiveness of their sins, through the merits of the Divine Redeemer; and measured our national existence by the year of our Lord:' when they urged the States to cherish 'pure and undefiled religion,' which the States never understood to be other than the Christian; when they carefully provided and paid Christian chaplains, of various denominations, that their armies, navies, and hospitals, might be supplied with Christian instruction and consolation; when they reverently waived national business on the Sabbath, while a Christian nation was en

gaged in worshiping the Father of mercies; and even tenderly accommodated those denominations that would celebrate the crucifixion of the Redeemer? We shall see that the spirit of "76, on these subjects, was still alive in the administration of Washington. If, therefore, our government is no longer Christian, but Jewish, Mohammedan, pagan, or atheistical, it is incumbent on those who declare it it anti-christian, 'to point out when and how the change was introduced.'" Under this head we have quoted largely from LOGIC and LAW.

Before closing the remarks on this point we add an extract from Rev. Evan Johns.

“Here, I would ask, are not the representatives of the people, with all their magistrates, chosen by the people, bound to devise and to carry into effect measures to aid them in the pursuit of happiness? Elected for this purpose, are not legislatures in duty bound to enact all the laws in their judgment adapted to answer the end of their appointment? Again, are not all our laws designed to prevent the ill-disposed from violating the rights of our fellow-citizens? Again, are not indecent exposures of human person, as well as other indecencies, punishable by law-punishable because injurious to morals? Are not certain things cognizable by law, under the name of nuisances, because they are found prejudicial to health? Is not the disturbance of public, social worship, at once a nuisance and an infringement of right? Who will deny, that the rumbling of a long string of wagons, the cracking of whips, and the blowing of horns, in front of a church, during public worship, is a dreadful nuisance? * * * Has any person the hardihood to deny that these sore evils may be legitimately prevented by laws adapted to the nature of each case? To give an affirmative answer to each of these questions, every candid person would feel himself impelled, when considering that facts have demonstrated, and, if cited, would again show clearly and fully that such is the constitution given by divine Providence to man and beasts of labor, as to make the rest of the Sabbath indispensable, to secure the greatest attainable portion of happiness. Who then will have the audacity to say, that the advocates of the Christian Sabbath are not authorized in their exertions to have it kept holy by the most