The Bible in American Law and Politics. John R. Vile
was not governmental recognition of Christianity per se but a recognition of one particular form of Christianity over another.
Adams proceeded to muster evidence to show the connections between governments in America and Christianity in defense of the argument that the Constitution did not intend “to renounce all connexion with the Christian religion,” but simply “to disclaim all preference of one sect of Christians over another” (Dreisbach 1996, 43). He further posited that this demonstration “has become important to the religion, the morals, the peace, the intelligence, and in fact, to all the highest interests of this country” (Dreisbach 1996, 43).
Adams began by looking at colonial charters and related documents, which he believed demonstrated that colonists had come to America in pursuit of religious freedom and that their success had largely depended on the spread of churches. He discerned the same pattern in the development of state constitutions and even the U.S. Constitution. As to the former, he observed that many of them specifically recognized Christianity, and that they provided for the observance of Sunday as a day of rest and worship. As to the U.S. Constitution, it not only exempted Sunday from the days that the president had to veto a bill but had, in its 6attestation clause, specifically referred to “the year of our Lord, 1787” (Dreisbach 1996, 63). Adams thought this clause was especially significant: “In the clause printed in Italic letters, the word Lord means the Lord Jesus Christ, and the word our preceding it, refers back to the commencing words of the Constitution: to wit, ‘We the people of the United States’” (Dreisbach 1996, 63). He therefore concluded that, while providing for the free exercise of religion, “THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE RETAINED THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AS THE FOUNDATION OF THEIR CIVIL, LEGAL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS; WHILE THEY HAVE REFUSED TO CONTINUE A LEGAL PREFERENCE TO ANY ONE OF ITS FORMS OVER THE OTHER” (Dreisbach 1996, 46).
Recognizing that the U.S. Constitution was primarily concerned with civil matters and that the First Amendment had recognized the free exercise of religion, Adams argued that it had otherwise left the prior relationship between church and state where it had been under the colonial charters and state constitutions. In a footnote, he likened this connection to that between the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which were largely found sub silentio within the Constitution (Dreisbach 1996, 47). Moreover, he pointed to a variety of congressional laws providing for days of prayer and thanksgiving, providing chaplains for the military and the like that showed such continuing church–state associations. Such cooperation was consistent with the admonition in Psalm 127:1 that “except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it” (Dreisbach 1996, 48). In his notes, Adams argued that the recent congressional act requiring postal employees to deliver mail on all days of the week was “unconstitutional, and ought to be rescinded” (Dreisbach 1996, 65). Concluding that “Christianity is the established religion of the nation,” Adams noted in a footnote that “the term ‘established’ is here used . . . in its usual and not in its legal or technical sense” (Dreisbach 1996, 49, n. 27).
Contesting the notion that there should be no connection between the government and Christianity, Adams pointed to its varied social benefits and concluded that “no nation on earth, is more dependent than our own, for its welfare, on the preservation and general belief and influence of Christianity among us” (Dreisbach 1996, 51). Men will either be governed by “physical force” or “by religious and moral principles pervading the community, guiding the conscience, enlightening the reason, softening the prejudices, and calming the passions of the multitude” (Dreisbach 1996, 53). It was thus logical to conclude, “We must be a Christian nation, if we wish to continue a free nation” (Dreisbach 1996, 52). Those who allowed the demise of Christianity through indifference would be culpable of sin and would be responsible for the rise of infidelity, whose political fruits were well known. Christianity had saved newborns from exposure, had secured society by establishing family ties, had provided for a day of rest, had ameliorated the tyranny of masters over the slaves, and had been responsible for the establishment of hospitals and asylums. “By excluding a Supreme Being, a superintending Providence, and a future state of rewards and punishments, as much as possible, from the minds of men, it [infidelity] will destroy all sense of moral responsibility” (Dreisbach 1996, 56).
Adams sent copies of his sermon to a number of contemporary political luminaries whose responses are interesting in their own right. Chief Justice John 7Marshall thus noted, “The American population is entirely Christian, & with us, Christianity & Religion are identified” (Dreisbach 1996, 113). Justice Joseph Story was pleased to see that Adams had agreed with his view that Christianity was embedding in the common law. Although James Madison continued to insist that religion did not need any state support in order to flourish, rather than citing Jefferson’s noted metaphor of a wall of separation between church and state, he observed that “it may not be easy in every possible case, to trace the line of separation, between the rights of Religion & the Civil authority, with such distinctness, as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points” (Dreisbach 1996, 120).
The most extended response to Adams’s essay was a review essay entitled the “Immunity of Religion” that was initially published in the American Quarterly Review and was probably authored either by Thomas Cooper, a resident of Philadelphia, or Randell Hunt, who had been among Adams’s students. Although complimenting Adams on his scholarship and probity, the author argued that Adams “has endeavoured to overturn one of the main pillars of our liberty” by invading and attempting “to destroy freedom of conscience, and on its ruins to erect intolerance and odious discriminations for religion’s sake” (Dreisbach 1996, 127). Curiously, however, the essay begins with a defense of “the truth of the Christian Scriptures” (Dreisbach 1996, 127).
The main argument of the essay, however, was the danger of combining church and state, which the author believed would inevitably lead to “discrimination in civil rights” and the allocation of benefits and punishments based on beliefs (Dreisbach 1996, 128). The critic argued that there was no real difference between preferring Christianity to other religions than there was to preferring Protestantism to Catholicism, or to Unitarianism. The role of government was limited: “Civil government is intended for the regulation of social man—for the promotion and security of human happiness here on earth. It is intended for this world—not the next. It should protect us in the enjoyment of our personal rights and property. It should not interfere with our opinions and faith. Its business is with our temporal or present interests, not with our future or eternal welfare” (Dreisbach 1996, 131). The author further argued that because humans cannot help what they believe, they should not be accountable to government for such beliefs. Moreover, “Christianity stands in need of no unequal protection” (Dreisbach 1996, 123).
Reviewing Adams’s arguments individually, the author argued that colonial charters had little relevance to the issue of a national religion, although colonists did demonstrate the